PDA

View Full Version : Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino)



Henry Gale
07-25-2019, 03:42 AM
IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt7131622/) / Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_Upon_a_Time_in_Hollywood)

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTg4ZTNkZmUtMzNlZi00YmFjLT k1MmUtNWQwNTM0YjcyNTNkXkEyXkFq cGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_SY100 0_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_.jpg

Henry Gale
07-25-2019, 03:57 AM
HMMMM.

What an odd movie, and somehow even weirder remembering Tarantino made it. Part of my mind spirals down that old fruitless hypothetical question of "What would people think of it if someone else directed this?" but honestly it's because it's the first film of Tarantino's that often feels completely unlike him, and I'm not sure if that makes it more or less interesting. If anything it feels like a Paul Thomas Anderson work where moments of it were workshopped with Edgar Wright or somebody. (And I realize the three of them know each other and have inevitably been mutually influential to one another.)

So yeah.. I have a lotta, lotta not-quite-fully-formed thoughts and things to digest with this. For now I know I definitely didn't love it (which out of the gate is first for me with Quentin!) but it also has the feel of the type of work where maybe another viewing would crack open something totally new in it for me. So right now I am hopeful for that but otherwise mostly perplexed.

Irish
07-25-2019, 04:47 PM
For now I know I definitely didn't love it

This as a bad sign, gents

Henry Gale
07-25-2019, 07:20 PM
This as a bad sign, gents

Well I'll say this, if I'm going by initial gut reactions, this feels like bottom tier Quentin but in my more comprehensive and rational part of my brain I know this is probably a lot better than, say, Death Proof or Django Unchained, even if those movie's more instantly gratifying, crowd-pleasing flavours help better mask what they may not otherwise have going for them. Those movies are mostly dressing with little salad, and OUATIH feels like all salad. It may be better in the long run even if it doesn't taste as nice.

Not to say it'll go the same way here, but it reminds me of when I first saw The Life Aquatic opening weekend, largely disappointed and dismissive of it, thinking it was largely territory Anderson had tackled before with slightly different characters and stylistic flourishes behind it. Then somewhere over time and multiple viewings later it became one of my absolute favourites of his. The difference here is it feels so unlike other current Tarantino works. It feels almost like a more natural film for him to have made between Jackie Brown and Inglorious Basterds, both for its more naturalistic style and history-bending antics. It's dialed down, at ease, but also nonchalantly anarchic. I'm not sure I expected (or in the moment realized) that.

Pop Trash
07-25-2019, 07:21 PM
Does this end the way I think it will end? If you mull it over i/r/t his previous historical films, I think you can figure out how this winds up. I kinda hope I'm wrong though.

Henry Gale
07-25-2019, 09:24 PM
Does this end the way I think it will end? If you mull it over i/r/t his previous historical films, I think you can figure out how this winds up. I kinda hope I'm wrong though.

Well give it your best, potentially unknowingly spoiler-y guess and I can confirm or deny (or abstain if you wish). To be honest I had a few guesses play out in my head over time and it was pretty close to one of them, just not exactly the same sort of mechanics or how it got there and what it did with it.

transmogrifier
07-25-2019, 10:00 PM
Well I'll say this, if I'm going by initial gut reactions, this feels like bottom tier Quentin but in my more comprehensive and rational part of my brain I know this is probably a lot better than, say, Death Proof or Django Unchained, even if those movie's more instantly gratifying, crowd-pleasing flavours help better mask what they may not otherwise have going for them. Those movies are mostly dressing with little salad, and OUATIH feels like all salad. It may be better in the long run even if it doesn't taste as nice.


Death Proof is his third-best film, silly. Love that thing.

Skitch
07-25-2019, 11:22 PM
Death Proof is his third-best film, silly. Love that thing.

I'm cool with that!

Unrelated to that evaluation, Pulp Fiction is his least good film. Still good, just least good.

transmogrifier
07-26-2019, 12:03 AM
I'm cool with that!

Unrelated to that evaluation, Pulp Fiction is his least good film. Still good, just least good.

Great
1. Reservoir Dogs
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Death Proof

Very Good
4. Inglorious Basterds

Okay
5. The Hateful Eight
6. Kill Bill Vol. 1

Meh
7. Kill Bill Vol. 2
8. Django Unchained
9. Jackie Brown

Weems
07-26-2019, 03:05 AM
I'm cool with that!

Unrelated to that evaluation, Pulp Fiction is his least good film. Still good, just least good.

I can't really understand that viewpoint. To me, it's like saying The Godfather Part II is Coppola's weakest movie.

baby doll
07-26-2019, 03:07 AM
Reservoir Dogs (1992) warm
Pulp Fiction (1994) spicy
Jackie Brown (1997) spicy
Kill Bill, Vol. 1 (2003) mild
Kill Bill, Vol. 2 (2004) mild
Death Proof (2007) mild
Inglourious Basterds (2009) warm
Django Unchained (2012) warm

True Romance (1993) warm
Natural Born Killers (1994) cold

Pop Trash
07-26-2019, 06:11 AM
Unrelated to that evaluation, Pulp Fiction is his least good film. Still good, just least good.

QT's rankings tend to be all over the place (similar to Wes & PT Anderson), but hardly anyone denies Pulp Fiction's greatness.

The cracks are finally showing in Reservoir Dogs for me, which it pains me to say, since I loved that damn movie as a kid. A recent rewatch was merely 'very good' instead of 'holy shit this is awesome' which is how I felt when I first watched it on VHS back in 1994.

Skitch
07-26-2019, 06:56 AM
but hardly anyone denies Pulp Fiction's greatness.

I know, my opinion is not with The Collective. There are some here that agree with me though. Weve been down this road before. Again, not saying it's a bad film by any stretch, just my least preferred.

[ETM]
07-26-2019, 09:31 PM
I guess we're all over the place with this. For me, "Jackie Brown" is the one I just don't get.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

TGM
07-26-2019, 10:42 PM
Inglourious Basterds
Kill Bill
Reservoir Dogs
Django Unchained
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
The Hateful Eight
Death Proof

Once Upon A Time In Hollywood needs to sit a little longer before I can place it just yet. Right now though, I’m feeling it’s either directly above or directly below Django for me.

Ezee E
07-26-2019, 11:46 PM
Highly enjoyed it. It definitely fits the "once upon a time" feel, especially as the last scene plays in many different ways:


Not only does Leo get invited in by a newer Hollywood, the Jay Sebring character is also living out his fantasy (being called 'honey' by his love).

There's going to be a lot of analyzation of this movie. Bruce Dern's blindness, the time jump, the different looks of violence...

I'd easily have watched a four hour version of this, as it kind of sweeps around from character to character just living their lives out in what their Hollywood dreams were hoping to be.

WITH that, I've always found Tarantino to be a master of being able to build suspense, and even more masterful at the release of it all. There's simply not enough of it here for this movie to join his top tiers, but for the moments where it is intended, particularly the ranch scene, it is as good as the other movies.

TOP TIER:
Pulp Fiction
Jackie Brown
Kill Bill
Inglorious Basterds
Django Unchained

MIDDLE (BUT STILL VERY GOOD)
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

TARANTINO BOTTOM (Still good but....)
Reservoir Dogs
Death Proof
Hateful Eight

Ezee E
07-26-2019, 11:56 PM
Also, for those articles from a few months ago that criticized Tarantino for not giving Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate enough lines, they clearly didn't see the movie. Yes, her dialog is small, but her impact and importance to the character is as important as the other two main characters.

Dukefrukem
07-27-2019, 01:30 AM
Pulp Fiction is the perfect movie to me. The dialog, supplemented by the performances (and not the other way around) is just so good.

Idioteque Stalker
07-27-2019, 03:12 AM
Gut take: It's thrilling, but not too thrilling. Funny, but not too funny. Good, but not too good?

Is it possible you're more likely to love the film the closer you are to Tarantino's age? There's a definite sense of nostalgia that didn't fully register with me, but still seems crucial especially in the longer sequences. Some of the shorter scenes were really great--still, others were kind of awkward.

Ezee E
07-27-2019, 03:38 AM
You obviously have to have an idea of Sharon Tate/Charles Manson to understand about half the movie. I feel like anyone from the 50's/early 60's talked about how Sharon Tate was the most beautiful person on earth. There's a mysticism that I've almost gotten from her from hearing parents stories and others with how they talk about her. The movie nails it too.

dreamdead
07-27-2019, 11:13 AM
The time went by breezily enough on this film, but afterwards Sarah and I were trying to decipher ways to trim the length. It felt like the peak of the film dramatically for us was during Pitt's ranch scene, as the film draws out that tension and keeps building it out. And while the catharsis during the final 20 minutes or so are nice, nothing really captures the ranch scene. And because the whole film is anchored to the Tate murders, I kept wondering what happens if you remove Robbie's Tate from the film after the first drive-up-the-driveway scene. While Robbie is solid here, her character doesn't really get that much to do and I don't know what we really learn about her beyond thinking that she was an up-and-coming actor.

I do wish the film had, paradoxically, spent just a little more time developing out any other hippy character (even the hippy girl that rides with Tate) so that it doesn't read so simplistically: hippy = Manson follower. Have to think on it more, but I would put this definitely ahead of Hateful Eight and Django Unchained. Not sure it'd go any higher presently.

TGM
07-27-2019, 01:02 PM
Also, for those articles from a few months ago that criticized Tarantino for not giving Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate enough lines, they clearly didn't see the movie. Yes, her dialog is small, but her impact and importance to the character is as important as the other two main characters.

Reminds me of all the people last year who criticized Bohemian Rhapsody for supposedly glossing over the gay aspect, or for supposedly not covering Freddie Mercury’s heritage. Such ridiculous claims left me thinking, “you wanna know how I know you haven’t actually seen the movie you're criticizing?”

Mal
07-27-2019, 02:04 PM
Also, for those articles from a few months ago that criticized Tarantino for not giving Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate enough lines, they clearly didn't see the movie. Yes, her dialog is small, but her impact and importance to the character is as important as the other two main characters.

I think I read that Quentin added some footage of her to combat that perception? Either way, this isn't a movie about Sharon Tate, so it doesn't concern me that she's a major player in the film or not.

This is a buddy film film, and I have never enjoyed DiCaprio and Pitt as much as I do here. What a captivating pairing they are, even though they spend most of the film apart on sets and around Hollywood. In such an idyllic setting, there are numerous facets to these flawed, possibly dangerous men who get their time to shine one last time in this fantasy. I see this as not only an obviously revisionist film, but one that has much wishful thinking regarding their careers through flashback AND that finale. I can't wait to see this again.

Ezee E
07-27-2019, 02:24 PM
I think I read that Quentin added some footage of her to combat that perception? Either way, this isn't a movie about Sharon Tate, so it doesn't concern me that she's a major player in the film or not.

This is a buddy film film, and I have never enjoyed DiCaprio and Pitt as much as I do here. What a captivating pairing they are, even though they spend most of the film apart on sets and around Hollywood. In such an idyllic setting, there are numerous facets to these flawed, possibly dangerous men who get their time to shine one last time in this fantasy. I see this as not only an obviously revisionist film, but one that has much wishful thinking regarding their careers through flashback AND that finale. I can't wait to see this again.

Interesting point regarding flashbacks. I'll have to look at Leo's flashbacks again, but can definitely see Pitt's being as much of a fantasy as the finale. A way that he shares it with people rather than what the truth actually is.

Pop Trash
07-27-2019, 09:22 PM
Bruce Dern's blindness

He's playing a real old blind guy that ran Spahn ranch. The Manson family basically took advantage of his disability, but Charlie Manson also had the Manson girls fuck him so he would let them keep living there. I haven't seen this yet (hopefully tomorrow) but the Manson stories are endlessly fascinating. How he was orbiting Hollywood, but could never quite break in, how "Squeaky" (who got her nickname from Spahn) Fromme attempted to kill Gerald Ford, Beatles obsession, trying to start a race war, the list goes on. About the only person who comes close in wacko California hippie lore is Jim Jones and (maybe) L Ron Hubbard. Having lived in California, I can definitely see how these type of cult leaders can grab ahold of imaginations around here. There's a lot of young people who run away from conservative middle America to California, only to fill their religious void with culty shit. Most of it is harmless new age stuff, but I can see how there's a darkside under the wrong people.

Irish
07-28-2019, 01:03 AM
Oof. The twitter reactions to this.

Scar
07-28-2019, 01:29 AM
Overall, I enjoyed it. I'll need another watch to see where I end up rating it, but I agree with it probably being Good Tarantino, not Great Tarantino. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The tension on the ranch was wonderful, the whole time I was trying to figure out how I was going to see Pitt die again. I was rolling during the finale, and for a split second thought Dalton was going to get killed when the cops left, and someone said 'hey' from behind. With that said, I went from laughing my ass off to reflective during the last few moments of the film, about what could have been.

Weems
07-28-2019, 05:02 PM
I thought this was bad, and almost entirely due to Tarantino's decision not to have an overriding plot.

Ivan Drago
07-28-2019, 06:35 PM
Oof. The twitter reactions to this.

What's happening? I haven't seen anything too crazy or reductive yet.

That being said. . .I'm not as attached to this as I thought I would be. Maybe I was just mentally preoccupied with anxiety over recent car trouble, but going plotless at a snail's pace was a major departure from Tarantino and not what I expected at all. I can't say I wasn't bored at points. It's his least violent and energetic movie for sure, but perhaps, that was the point? Was the film a snapshot of Hollywood in a period where everyone involved was focused on the craft of filmmaking, rather than a competition driven by news media and brand names? And was he making a statement about how cinema became more gruesome and centered around violence after the Sharon Tate murder? I dunno, I'm just spitballing here. A second viewing will hopefully (and surely) clear things up.

MadMan
07-29-2019, 04:34 AM
I loved it, even though OUATIH dragged a bit in the middle. Brad Pitt on acid is the funniest thing I have seen this year.

MadMan
07-29-2019, 04:35 AM
Oof. The twitter reactions to this.

Most of the ones I have seen on the film's page have been positive. Not that I care what strangers think. I value the people on this site's opinions, however.

MadMan
07-29-2019, 04:41 AM
He's playing a real old blind guy that ran Spahn ranch. The Manson family basically took advantage of his disability, but Charlie Manson also had the Manson girls fuck him so he would let them keep living there. I haven't seen this yet (hopefully tomorrow) but the Manson stories are endlessly fascinating. How he was orbiting Hollywood, but could never quite break in, how "Squeaky" (who got her nickname from Spahn) Fromme attempted to kill Gerald Ford, Beatles obsession, trying to start a race war, the list goes on. About the only person who comes close in wacko California hippie lore is Jim Jones and (maybe) L Ron Hubbard. Having lived in California, I can definitely see how these type of cult leaders can grab ahold of imaginations around here. There's a lot of young people who run away from conservative middle America to California, only to fill their religious void with culty shit. Most of it is harmless new age stuff, but I can see how there's a darkside under the wrong people.

I actually first read about the Manson family in The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time book. I filled in the rest later with more facts. I caught the Squeaky part-it is so weird that someone tried to kill Gerald Ford.

MadMan
07-29-2019, 04:42 AM
Well I'll say this, if I'm going by initial gut reactions, this feels like bottom tier Quentin but in my more comprehensive and rational part of my brain I know this is probably a lot better than, say, Death Proof or Django Unchained, even if those movie's more instantly gratifying, crowd-pleasing flavours help better mask what they may not otherwise have going for them. Those movies are mostly dressing with little salad, and OUATIH feels like all salad. It may be better in the long run even if it doesn't taste as nice.

Not to say it'll go the same way here, but it reminds me of when I first saw The Life Aquatic opening weekend, largely disappointed and dismissive of it, thinking it was largely territory Anderson had tackled before with slightly different characters and stylistic flourishes behind it. Then somewhere over time and multiple viewings later it became one of my absolute favourites of his. The difference here is it feels so unlike other current Tarantino works. It feels almost like a more natural film for him to have made between Jackie Brown and Inglorious Basterds, both for its more naturalistic style and history-bending antics. It's dialed down, at ease, but also nonchalantly anarchic. I'm not sure I expected (or in the moment realized) that.

Heh I think The Life Aquatic is Wes Anderson's best film and yeah it took me multiple viewings to think that. I think Hollywood will require another viewing from me to form a final opinion. I have seen all of QT's movies at least twice.

Ezee E
07-29-2019, 04:50 AM
I've just started to learn from Film Twitter that a fair amount of the objections are simply to get clicks or followers. Many haven't even seen the movie and purposely play a role to rile people up.

StuSmallz
07-29-2019, 05:18 AM
I felt this was QT's best movie since Vol. 2, seeing as how it's easily the most emotional effort he's done in a while, with Dalton being the best-developed character he's made since Beatrix, and I feel like I'm in the minority when it comes to feeling that meaty, substantive character development is the thing he does the best (when he actually bothers to attempt it), like Jules's arc of redemption, Max & Jackie's rich, bittersweet romance, or the love/hate dynamic that unexpectedly develops between Bill & The Bride in (JB is my favorite from him due to the character work, for crying out loud), and it feels like the lack of well-developed characters (like the fairly flat Django) and an over-reliance on flashy, over-the-top caricatures (like Aldo) left those films with the Tarantino style, but not the SUBSTANCE, which is why, even though I grew up watching (and often loving) his movies, I've still grown cold to his recent works.

But, like I said, Dalton does have a pretty good personal arc in this one, one that left me feeling some undeniable, unexpected sympathy for him in a moment that wouldn't seem like a huge deal from an outside perspective, but to him at that juncture, meant everything in the world, and that compelling character work, plus the film being a generally pretty entertaining, loving tribute to the American film industry finally leaving the long Classical period behind to move into the all-too-brief era of the New Hollywood, left me actually liking it, the first Tarantino I've done so for since Kill Bill. Don't get me wrong, it was a bit self-indulgent at times (naturally) with the late 60's LA scenery/period details, it could've stood to be at least 15 minutes shorter (with a few less scenes of people just cruising around town), and Dalton's arc should've used at least a little bit more focus, seeing as how the film juggles its attention too much between him, Cliff, and Tate at times, but, while not great, it's still a good 8/10 at least, and a step back in the right direction for him, as far as I'm concerned.

TGM
07-29-2019, 02:30 PM
What's happening? I haven't seen anything too crazy or reductive yet.

Accidentally stumbled upon some of it last night, but from what I gathered, it appears to be mostly just people who still can’t get over the Tarantino controversy that broke about a year or so ago and wanna accuse Tarantino and this movie of being misogynist, and people who find the subject matter in poor taste, with most these people again sounding like they haven’t actually seen the movie they’re so critical of. But that’s what I saw briefly before I quickly rolled my eyes and clicked away at least.

Ivan Drago
07-29-2019, 02:37 PM
Since asking that, I've seen criticisms for how it treated the Manson family and its depiction of Bruce Lee. . .which is strange because the former should not be sympathized with and the latter was well-portrayed in my opinion.

Pop Trash
07-29-2019, 03:44 PM
I felt this was QT's best movie since Vol. 2, seeing as how it's easily the most emotional effort he's done in a while, with Dalton being the best-developed character he's made since Beatrix, and I feel like I'm in the minority when it comes to feeling that meaty, substantive character development is the thing he does the best (when he actually bothers to attempt it), like Jules's arc of redemption, Max & Jackie's rich, bittersweet romance, or the love/hate dynamic that unexpectedly develops between Bill & The Bride in (JB is my favorite from him due to the character work, for crying out loud), and it feels like the lack of well-developed characters (like the fairly flat Django) and an over-reliance on flashy, over-the-top caricatures (like Aldo) left those films with the Tarantino style, but not the SUBSTANCE, which is why, even though I grew up watching (and often loving) his movies, I've still grown cold to his recent works.

But, like I said, Dalton does have a pretty good personal arc in this one, one that left me feeling some undeniable, unexpected sympathy for him in a moment that wouldn't seem like a huge deal from an outside perspective, but to him at that juncture, meant everything in the world, and that compelling character work, plus the film being a generally pretty entertaining, loving tribute to the American film industry finally leaving the long Classical period behind to move into the all-too-brief era of the New Hollywood, left me actually liking it, the first Tarantino I've done so for since Kill Bill. Don't get me wrong, it was a bit self-indulgent at times (naturally) with the late 60's LA scenery/period details, it could've stood to be at least 15 minutes shorter (with a few less scenes of people just cruising around town), and Dalton's arc should've used at least a little bit more focus, seeing as how the film juggles its attention too much between him, Cliff, and Tate at times, but, while not great, it's still a good 8/10 at least, and a step back in the right direction for him, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm inclined to agree. This one has a lot of heart, which is surprising since The Hateful Eight is arguably his most sour and cynical film. I actually like all the driving scenes. They just seem cool and remind me a lot of '60s / '70s car racing pictures like Two Lane Blacktop.

My biggest gripe is the v/o from Kurt Russell, which is a device QT started doing in Eight and I found it annoying in that one as well (I guess I should be thankful he hired an actual actor instead of doing it himself). It completely over explains things QT should easily be able to show visually and diegetic rather than plopping a narrator on the soundtrack.

There's also a lot of bare feet. The hippie chick with Cliff didn't bother me, since rubbing her dirty feet all over his car seems like something a teenage hippie chick would do, but my beloved Sharon Tate wouldn't be the type to stick her bare feet on the seat in front of her at the movies. Having worked at a movie theater, that shit just triggers me.

dreamdead
07-29-2019, 04:18 PM
Since asking that, I've seen criticisms for how it treated the Manson family and its depiction of Bruce Lee. . .which is strange because the former should not be sympathized with and the latter was well-portrayed in my opinion.

I initially wondered about the Bruce Lee treatment myself, but am intrigued by this reading (https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/29/8932193/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-bruce-lee-tarantino):


Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) is already yelling when we meet him in Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood. Appearing in a hazy flashback in which stuntman-turned-unofficial-valet Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) recalls — possibly unreliably — the day his professional career took a turn for the worse, Lee stalks around a backlot touting his abilities, noting that he’s had to register his hands as lethal weapons, and generally holding court for an audience of fellow professionals. Unimpressed, Cliff mildly taunts him and the taunt quickly escalates into a physical challenge, even though Lee really should have nothing to prove. Yet he does. He always had something to prove. Having something to prove defined his career....

Pop Trash
07-29-2019, 04:25 PM
I don't think it's unreliable, since it's clear foreshadowing (and there's a lot of Chekhov's ______ style foreshadowing in the film; the flamethrower, the pitbull). That scene is set-up like a typical QT diversion, but it's there for a reason. If Cliff could take out Bruce Fuckin' Lee, he could take out some 100 lbs. hippie chicks (and one scrawny hippie dude).

TGM
07-29-2019, 06:49 PM
Since asking that, I've seen criticisms for how it treated the Manson family and its depiction of Bruce Lee. . .which is strange because the former should not be sympathized with and the latter was well-portrayed in my opinion.

Agreed and agreed.


My biggest gripe is the v/o from Kurt Russell, which is a device QT started doing in Eight and I found it annoying in that one as well (I guess I should be thankful he hired an actual actor instead of doing it himself). It completely over explains things QT should easily be able to show visually and diegetic rather than plopping a narrator on the soundtrack.

That might've been my biggest gripe as well actually. It didn't annoy me as much as it did in The Hateful Eight, but it still felt rather intrusive and unnecessary.


I felt this was QT's best movie since Vol. 2, seeing as how it's easily the most emotional effort he's done in a while, with Dalton being the best-developed character he's made since Beatrix, and I feel like I'm in the minority when it comes to feeling that meaty, substantive character development is the thing he does the best (when he actually bothers to attempt it), like Jules's arc of redemption, Max & Jackie's rich, bittersweet romance, or the love/hate dynamic that unexpectedly develops between Bill & The Bride in (JB is my favorite from him due to the character work, for crying out loud), and it feels like the lack of well-developed characters (like the fairly flat Django) and an over-reliance on flashy, over-the-top caricatures (like Aldo) left those films with the Tarantino style, but not the SUBSTANCE, which is why, even though I grew up watching (and often loving) his movies, I've still grown cold to his recent works.

But, like I said, Dalton does have a pretty good personal arc in this one, one that left me feeling some undeniable, unexpected sympathy for him in a moment that wouldn't seem like a huge deal from an outside perspective, but to him at that juncture, meant everything in the world, and that compelling character work, plus the film being a generally pretty entertaining, loving tribute to the American film industry finally leaving the long Classical period behind to move into the all-too-brief era of the New Hollywood, left me actually liking it, the first Tarantino I've done so for since Kill Bill. Don't get me wrong, it was a bit self-indulgent at times (naturally) with the late 60's LA scenery/period details, it could've stood to be at least 15 minutes shorter (with a few less scenes of people just cruising around town), and Dalton's arc should've used at least a little bit more focus, seeing as how the film juggles its attention too much between him, Cliff, and Tate at times, but, while not great, it's still a good 8/10 at least, and a step back in the right direction for him, as far as I'm concerned.

Pretty much just love this take on the movie. :)

Irish
07-29-2019, 08:22 PM
I initially wondered about the Bruce Lee treatment myself, but am intrigued by this reading (https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/29/8932193/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-bruce-lee-tarantino):

This is a weird read, given "The Green Hornet" and Lee's place in it. American producers insisted he never remove his mask on camera, to partially obscure his ethnicity, but the show still made him famous across Asia (where it was broadcast as "The Kato Show"). Imagine the cognitive dissonance that would create for someone born in San Francisco but raised in Hong Kong.

Still weirder is the level of bias and condescension in phrases like "having something to prove," "Hong Kong's blossoming film industry," and "far less glamorous conditions across Asia." (Like, seriously?)

In America, we usually describe "having something to prove" as "ambition" and "focus."

Prigge also cites Matthew Polly's biography, but I guess he's never seen a photo of Lee standing in front of a Hong Kong movie palace on premiere night, surrounded by crazed fans. Glamorous indeed.

This also sorta ignores that fact that Lee was already well known as a martial artist due to his appearance at Ed Parker's Long Beach Karate Tournament in 1964. That was his real foot in the door, and it eventually led to him being cast on "Green Hornet."

MadMan
07-30-2019, 05:49 AM
I'm inclined to agree. This one has a lot of heart, which is surprising since The Hateful Eight is arguably his most sour and cynical film. I actually like all the driving scenes. They just seem cool and remind me a lot of '60s / '70s car racing pictures like Two Lane Blacktop.

My biggest gripe is the v/o from Kurt Russell, which is a device QT started doing in Eight and I found it annoying in that one as well (I guess I should be thankful he hired an actual actor instead of doing it himself). It completely over explains things QT should easily be able to show visually and diegetic rather than plopping a narrator on the soundtrack.

There's also a lot of bare feet. The hippie chick with Cliff didn't bother me, since rubbing her dirty feet all over his car seems like something a teenage hippie chick would do, but my beloved Sharon Tate wouldn't be the type to stick her bare feet on the seat in front of her at the movies. Having worked at a movie theater, that shit just triggers me.

Heh yeah the driving scenes were really cool. I think I gave the voice over part a pass because it was Kurt Russell-that guy has an awesome voice.

The feet fetish QT has though got taken to new creepy heights in this flick. I loved The Hateful Eight.

dreamdead
07-31-2019, 01:45 PM
One more take on the film, this time from K. Austin Collins over at Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/07/tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-revenge-fantasy-manson-family):


...There have been complaints since the film’s debut at Cannes in May about the relative scarcity of Margot Robbie’s role, and it’s true that there’s an imbalance between her and the film’s leading men. I kept wishing there were either more of her—actual scenes in which Tate is given that trademark Tarantino wit and crunchy mouthfuls of good writing—or less of her, so that we might all be on the same page about the role’s intentions. Robbie, to her credit, fleshes Tate out beautifully, poignantly, makes her the kind of person you miss without even knowing her.

My own complaint is a little more cynical. What is it that makes Tate’s fate so much more worthy of sympathy than, say, that of a woman who was by all accounts killed by her husband? Had that wife somehow lived, she might, in another Tarantino era, have inspired a two-part revenge thriller in which the husband and all of his friends were forced to reckon with the consequences. But, then, for all the genuine sympathy he lavishes on the characters he loves, Tarantino was never one for equal opportunity fantasies...

I find the idea of questioning why Tarantino would recuperate Tate rather than Cliff's wife gets at some of my frustrations with what to do with Robbie's performance.

Pop Trash
07-31-2019, 02:36 PM
One more take on the film, this time from K. Austin Collins over at Vanity Fair (https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/07/tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-revenge-fantasy-manson-family):



I find the idea of questioning why Tarantino would recuperate Tate rather than Cliff's wife gets at some of my frustrations with what to do with Robbie's performance.

This read completely flies in the face of Tarantino's m/o his entire career and the arguments he has been making about on screen violence vs. real life violence for years. Cliff's wife is not real, in the same way that Cliff is not real. They are both made up characters that exist only on screen, on page, and in QT's head. Sharon Tate was most certainly a real person, as were the Manson family, Adolf Hitler, and the millions of people killed in the holocaust. Why would one have more sympathy for Sharon Tate than Cliff's wife? Because Cliff's wife doesn't exist.

TGM
07-31-2019, 03:33 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPR43PhX6PE

I like their description near the end of this movie feeling like a warm blanket in the modern landscape of film. Watched this movie again last night, and that description feels very accurate to me.

Ezee E
08-01-2019, 12:19 AM
This read completely flies in the face of Tarantino's m/o his entire career and the arguments he has been making about on screen violence vs. real life violence for years. Cliff's wife is not real, in the same way that Cliff is not real. They are both made up characters that exist only on screen, on page, and in QT's head. Sharon Tate was most certainly a real person, as were the Manson family, Adolf Hitler, and the millions of people killed in the holocaust. Why would one have more sympathy for Sharon Tate than Cliff's wife? Because Cliff's wife doesn't exist.

And Sharon Tate was also pregnant.

Henry Gale
08-03-2019, 03:10 AM
I saw this again last night (this time in 70mm!), and with the week in between to let it hang in my mind and then reabsorbing aspects of it through others' thoughts on it, I liked it much more this time! I'm also now convinced it's my least favourite Tarantino.

It's still a nice piece of work, I just wish it didn't feel so.. rudderless? Up until that last act, anyway. It helps that it ends with its best section, just watching it a second time makes the wait for it feel even longer in a way (even with some strong moments and sequences sprinkled throughout). And still a surprisingly breezy 2.5 hours each time, despite its often leisurely pace.

I like it a lot, just not as much as I hoped I would, which is to say as much as any of his other films, which just speaks to how highly I think of him and his career overall than to any considerable misgivings this time around.

DavidSeven
08-04-2019, 08:15 AM
This was wonderful.

Nearly three hours? It felt like it ended too soon. I could’ve spent all day with Dalton, Cliff and Sharon. Tarantino’s catalogue is filled with a lot of great, big performances, but I think DiCaprio and Pitt pull off some amazing unstylized work here. It’s just classic, good, natural acting. I don’t know that I’ve seen anything quite like this movie — I guess it’s a little like Linklater blended with bigger concepts and bigger movie-making. And he pulls it off. I dig the reading that a lot of the film may be Cliff’s (and maybe Dalton’s) wishful thinking. A fun layer on an already-great movie.

Skitch
08-04-2019, 08:35 AM
Rumor mill says a four hour cut may appear...

Ezee E
08-04-2019, 02:01 PM
Rumor mill says a four hour cut may appear...

Although that assumes Netflix does what it did with Hateful Eight and have end credits after each "episode."

Skitch
08-04-2019, 06:01 PM
Although that assumes Netflix does what it did with Hateful Eight and have end credits after each "episode."

Possible. Tarantino made those episodes himself at least.

dreamdead
08-04-2019, 08:22 PM
Why would one have more sympathy for Sharon Tate than Cliff's wife? Because Cliff's wife doesn't exist.

I've held off from replying because I've been trying to parse out my response here, so hopefully this makes sense. What confounds me is that although part of Tarantino's agenda here is to reveal the transgressiveness of many of his characters (to choose to go overseas to make a film, to cite just one example), I don't understand what we gain by having a transgressive, probable (?) wife-killer be structured as the fundamental hero here. What do we gain by having sympathy for Cliff as a murderer that doesn't contradict the film's judgment of the Manson killers?

So much of the film works to try to show us Tate's interiority, but the part where it could best do so would be in the hippie-hitch scene, which he cuts from, and so she remains just a dream object. And I'm basically fine if she appeared at the opening and close of the film, but she's given so much less interest here than Cliff or Dalton even as she remains "central," so why does the film have less sympathy for her--to come back to your wording--than for the male, nonexistent characters that make up nearly the whole run time?

That ends up being my central hangup with the film...

DavidSeven
08-04-2019, 11:04 PM
The thing with Cliff’s wife is a callback to Natalie Wood. His wife’s name is even Natalie. I don’t know that it’s any more “probable” (based on what we saw) that Cliff murdered his wife than it is that Robert Wagner murdered Natalie Wood. That is, to say, we have absolutely no way of knowing for sure, and the general mystery behind it is something that creates a cultural conversation.

I don’t know that it adds much to the character or the film’s moral center, but this sort of intrigue that casted a shadow over certain celebrities was very much a part of the old Hollywood era. I think Tarantino was just trying to infuse that general mystique into his film.

StuSmallz
08-05-2019, 06:26 AM
This read completely flies in the face of Tarantino's m/o his entire career and the arguments he has been making about on screen violence vs. real life violence for years. Cliff's wife is not real, in the same way that Cliff is not real. They are both made up characters that exist only on screen, on page, and in QT's head. Sharon Tate was most certainly a real person, as were the Manson family, Adolf Hitler, and the millions of people killed in the holocaust. Why would one have more sympathy for Sharon Tate than Cliff's wife? Because Cliff's wife doesn't exist.At the risk of nit-picking a movie I otherewise enjoyed for the most part, the details about Cliff and his wife did bother me a bit, seeing as how the film had all-but-confirmed that he did kill her (it certainly never implied his innocence at any point), so, during the climax, we're basically supposed to root for some real-life murderers to get completely brutalized... by a fellow murderer, which muddies the waters for what's an unnecessary character detail (as the film firmly established Cliff's capability/propensity for violence multiple other times anyway, like in the fight with Lee, the confrontation at the ranch, etc.,), so it just feels like another example of Tarantino not being aware of the occasional obnoxiousness of his more sadistic tendencies, and somewhat undermines the whole point of the scene. He's a fictional murderer, yes, but obviously, he's just as "real" within the reality of the film as the Manson Family are, so it just doesn't work, unless Tarantino was trying to go for some additional meta-commentary that the fictional characters/elements in the film don't matter in the sobering light of what really happened, but in that case, then the extreme historical revisionism doesn't matter either, and there's no real catharsis in all the carnage during that scene, which is not something I can imagine he intended. It's like that part in DP when we're supposed to (very abruptly) start rooting for the girls to get revenge after they just abandoned their friend to be sexually assaulted by "Tom Joad", and laughed about it as they drove away; Tarantino, stop being such a socio, would ya?

DavidSeven
08-05-2019, 05:57 PM
seeing as how the film had all-but-confirmed that he did kill her (it certainly never implied his innocence at any point)

I disagree. The ambiguity is the point. It's a reference to old Hollywood rumor and intrigue. If the only point was to show us that Cliff was a killer, then Tarantino would've shown us the entire scene.

StuSmallz
08-08-2019, 08:35 AM
I disagree. The ambiguity is the point. It's a reference to old Hollywood rumor and intrigue. If the only point was to show us that Cliff was a killer, then Tarantino would've shown us the entire scene.I feel that, if being ambiguous was Tarantino's intention with that sub-plot, he should've been just a little more... ambiguous with it; of course, we don't explicitly see what happened to Cliff's wife, but, like I said, the film all-but confirms it with its various indications, as, among other things, Cliff makes a remark about how prison's been trying to nab him for something for some time now, multiple characters believe that he did it (and the only one who doesn't is the guy who holds a personal bias as his best friend), and most importantly of all, the way we see him hanging out on the boat, drunk and with a speargun in hand, all alone, and staring at a stereotypically naggy "bitch" who won't quit trying to pick a fight with him as the sound of a wave omniously washes over her dialogue at the end of the scene. Again, at the risk of nit-picking, if all of that is supposed to be "ambigious" just because we don't technically see him kill her, then I think we're gonna need a fundamental redefinition of that word.

Milky Joe
08-08-2019, 04:59 PM
Yeahhh, I never once thought Cliff didn't kill his wife. The cries of ambiguity confuse me. The Natalie Wood connection certainly still applies though, cuz let's face it, Wagner definitely killed her.

DavidSeven
08-08-2019, 08:45 PM
most importantly of all, the way we see him hanging out on the boat, drunk and with a speargun in hand, all alone, and staring at a stereotypically naggy "bitch" who won't quit trying to pick a fight with him as the sound of a wave omniously washes over her dialogue at the end of the scene.

But what results from that setup is your projection of how you expect that scenario to play out. Not what is actually shown or said in the film. You see a wife nagging her husband while he has a harpoon in his hand, and you decide he must have used it in that moment to kill her, even though there's literally nothing in the film that says or shows she was stabbed by a harpoon. The bottom line is that not showing us what actually happened was a deliberate choice, probably with the expectation that debates like this would occur.

Tarantino is not in the business of implying or "all but confirming" violence. He's in the business of showing it. If he doesn't, then that is a choice in itself that suggests something deeper. Regarding Robert Wagner/Natalie Wood, I won't profess to know what happened there, but certainly many in Hollywood believe in his innocence, as he has been working non-stop for four decades.

MadMan
08-09-2019, 03:46 AM
Yeah I agree that QT was going for the Robert Wagner/Natalie Wood bit. Which is odd considering that the inspiration for Rick and Cliff is Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham.

Ivan Drago
08-11-2019, 03:44 AM
After seeing it a second time with a clear head, I feel comfortable to say I really liked it. It does run long and feels self-indulgent at times, but it authentically and passionately recreates Hollywood at a point in time where everyone was dedicated to the craft of filmmaking. It gives audiences time to feel how big the town is with every car ride, ponder what kind of people these characters are, and meditate about how much Hollywood has and has not changed since the tragedy its meandering but focused plot centered around. It ultimately serves as a lovely yet melancholy reminder of what Hollywood would be if Sharon Tate were still alive today.

And because everybody's doing it:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Inglourious Basterds
3. Django Unchained
4. The Hateful Eight
5. Death Proof
6. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
7. Reservoir Dogs
8. Jackie Brown
9. Kill Bill

MadMan
08-11-2019, 05:42 AM
Django
Pulp Fiction
Hateful Eight
OUATIH
Inglourious Basterds
Kill Bill Vol. 2
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs
Death Proof
Kill Bill Vol. 1

I love them all, just in various ways. I have seen Eight, Basterds, Hollywood, DP and Django on the big screen.

Pop Trash
08-12-2019, 12:32 AM
Tarantino is not in the business of implying or "all but confirming" violence. He's in the business of showing it. If he doesn't, then that is a choice in itself that suggests something deeper. Regarding Robert Wagner/Natalie Wood, I won't profess to know what happened there, but certainly many in Hollywood believe in his innocence, as he has been working non-stop for four decades.

I agree. Not to mention, even if he did kill his wife, are we supposed to mindlessly 'root' for him like he's a superhero? We didn't necessarily 'root' for Jules & Vincent in Pulp Fiction, two people who have killed more than one lady on a boat. In yet, we enjoyed their company and many people have watched their story multiple times. Same goes for Michael Corleone and Henry Hill in Goodfellas (a real person involved in murder, no less).

I think the story with his wife (which David Seven correctly noted is truncated for a reason, to create an air of ambiguity) is there for shade and coloring. We're told he is a 'war hero' (read: killed people real good overseas), he's tough enough to take out Bruce Lee, and to add even more grey area, may or may not have gotten away with killing his wife.

StuSmallz
08-15-2019, 06:14 AM
But what results from that setup is your projection of how you expect that scenario to play out. Not what is actually shown or said in the film. You see a wife nagging her husband while he has a harpoon in his hand, and you decide he must have used it in that moment to kill her, even though there's literally nothing in the film that says or shows she was stabbed by a harpoon. The bottom line is that not showing us what actually happened was a deliberate choice, probably with the expectation that debates like this would occur.

Tarantino is not in the business of implying or "all but confirming" violence. He's in the business of showing it. If he doesn't, then that is a choice in itself that suggests something deeper. Regarding Robert Wagner/Natalie Wood, I won't profess to know what happened there, but certainly many in Hollywood believe in his innocence, as he has been working non-stop for four decades.But the notion that that aspect of the film was intended to be taken as ambiguous on the whole is itself a projection based off of what is, at best, a 10% ambiguity (and even going that high is being generous), which is far, far outweighed by all of the indicators I listed both inside and outside of that scene that show QT indicating otherwise, a couple of which I didn't even have the space to list earlier, such as Cliff mentioning that he already did time on a chain gang for an earlier offense, or the fact that he didn't even bother to verbally defend himself at all when he was being called a "wife-killer" (in fact, he just looked away in exasperation, which is much more the reaction of a guilty man being publically embarassed with the truth, rather than that of an innocent man's outrage at an outrageous false accusation).

I'm not expecting the film to go into an O.J.: Made in America-length tangent about the facts of that "case", but the beliefs of the three outside parties that Cliff murdered her, based off of whatever facts they're personally aware of in the film's universe, serve as a cinematic shorthand for what QT's intentions with that sub-plot were, and the primary reason he cut away from showing what happened wasn't to be ambiguous, it was because he was more than clear enough about what probably happened on that boat, and he trusts our intelligence enough that he knows he doesn't actually have to show what happened. The choice not to do so does indeed suggest something deeper, but it's because unnecessarily including a violent moment that early in the film would've clashed with the relatively restrained content he was going for (as he was smartly saving most of the bloodshed up for the climax), and not because he was trying to build up some sort of mystery there.

At the end of the day, there's barely any more evidence for that reading of that element of Hollywood then there is for the assumption that Bruce Lee fight was just Cliff's fantasy, and saying it's ambiguous is like saying it was ambiguous in Death Proof whether or not Lee was about to be sexually assaulted by the mechanic after her friends abandoned her (after lying to him that she was a porn star); he didn't show the result of that scene to be ambiguous, he did it because he already made it clear what the end result of that scenario was going to end up being, just like he made it pretty damn clear what in all likelihood happened between Cliff & his wife.

Pop Trash
08-16-2019, 03:11 PM
"Either he's alive or he's dead, or the cops got him... or they don't."

baby doll
08-20-2019, 01:13 AM
Regarding whether or not Cliff killed his wife, my read was: Maybe he didn't do it, but even if he did, the bitch had it coming.

On the other hand, when people start claiming that the scene with Bruce Lee is filtered through Cliff's subjective memories and may not be a reliable account of what actually transpired, I start to think that Tarantino's fans have weaponized the concept of ambiguity as an all-purpose trump card to defuse any and all criticisms of his work.

Skitch
08-20-2019, 01:25 AM
I haven't seen the movie, but as a massive fan of Bruce Lee and his legacy, spoiler alert for his people freaking out about this movie, 1. Bruce was arrogant, 2. By all reports, Hitler wasn't gunned down in a theater that was on fire as Jewish employees laughed on the screen. Relax.

DavidSeven
08-20-2019, 01:32 AM
I think seeing many scenes, including the finale, as a form of wish fulfillment for the Cliff character is just a fun way to read the film, not so much as a defense of anything presented on screen. As far as the Bruce Lee scene, I saw a character (Lee) who was portrayed as having bravado and a sense of humor. I thought it was cool, personally, and saw nothing there to take offense to, regardless if it was "real life" or a daydream. The fact that people are upset that the character had a competitive fight with a fictional person is just absurd.

baby doll
08-20-2019, 01:32 AM
I haven't seen the movie, but as a massive fan of Bruce Lee and his legacy, spoiler alert for his people freaking out about this movie, 1. Bruce was arrogant, 2. By all reports, Hitler wasn't gunned down in a theater that was on fire as Jewish employees laughed on the screen. Relax.I'm not objecting to the scene itself but the reflexive recourse to "ambiguity" as a means of defusing the criticism of it when there's nothing to suggest that the film's narration is unreliable. (The only scene marked as a fantasy is when Tarantino Forrest Gumps DiCapprio into The Great Escape.)

TGM
08-20-2019, 01:33 AM
2. By all reports, Hitler wasn't gunned down in a theater that was on fire as Jewish employees laughed on the screen. Relax.

This is the part that gets me the most about the criticisms towards this movie's "accuracy". Anyone who saw Inglourious Basterds yet still went into this expecting anything but for Tarantino to fictionalize history in a way that completely changes the true story once again is a fool, plain and simple.

Skitch
08-20-2019, 10:21 AM
I'm not objecting to the scene itself but the reflexive recourse to "ambiguity" as a means of defusing the criticism of it when there's nothing to suggest that the film's narration is unreliable. (The only scene marked as a fantasy is when Tarantino Forrest Gumps DiCapprio into The Great Escape.)

My comment wasnt pointed at you. I get what you're saying, completely. I'm not defending the film (again, havent seen it yet.)

I follow a lot of martial arts pages and there is real vitriol. And theres the other angle, he fights a fictional character. Even if based on a real person, it's not real. Guess what, Bruce could get his ass kicked by Godzilla, Robocop, and Spongebob Squarepants in cinema and it wouldn't bother me a tick.

If you study the sport enough, it's also not crazy to speculate who couldve possibly beat Bruce in real life. He was not a god. There were people that couldve beaten him. In no way does that undercut his abilities or especially his revolutionizing the art. He was the Jesus of martial arts and brought the New Testement to the world. But he was not an immortal super-saiyan.

kuehnepips
08-20-2019, 10:29 AM
I don't like Leo, but he is very good in this

Ezee E
08-20-2019, 05:15 PM
Also, Bruce kind of lets his guard down on the attack considering his first attempt was so easy. He let his guard down. Easy tactic.

Anything for clickbait these days though.

Milky Joe
08-20-2019, 08:02 PM
"Does Bruce have a gun?"
"What?"
"Does Bruce Lee have a gun? Because if not, then it's Ali in 30 seconds." - Michael Ehrmantraut

StanleyK
08-20-2019, 09:50 PM
While this was pretty good, it continued the trend in QT's latest movies of feeling bloated. This could've benefited from some trimming down, and it certainly felt slower paced than his other movies (except maybe The Hateful Eight). To be honest, most of Tate's scenes felt extraneous. However on the positive side, this was probably his funniest movie to date; one area where he's constantly improving is comedy.

Grouchy
08-30-2019, 12:14 AM
This was a wonderful... experience. The film continues recent tendencies of Tarantino to focus on character work and create suspense only to deflate it but, like Gale says, it veers dangerously close to P.T. Anderson territory. I feel like Boogie Nights (and most of Anderson's recent output, which offers large canvases of a certain time period in History) must have been a huge influence on QT for this. One thing that surprised me is that, like Ezee E says, someone who knows nothing about the Tate murders will be completely confused by this. This is a gift from a film nerd to other film nerds. It reminds me of what Alan Moore said about The Killing Joke - if you're not a comic book nerd, you completely miss the relevance of the story being told.

I was also a fan of the driving scenes. And I have no real knowledge of the distances of California but it seems to me the first drive of the movie, made by Cliff from Dalton's home to his trailer house, worked as a storytelling device showing the social and financial divide between the two men. The other extended driving scenes were at least wonderfully poetic. That's also why I have no qualms with Quentin's version of Tate - she wants us to see this young actress having fun on what might be the final days of her life.

Grouchy
08-30-2019, 01:48 AM
Huh, I'd like to read what John Waters has to say about this movie.

Mal
08-30-2019, 11:27 PM
Huh, I'd like to read what John Waters has to say about this movie.
Apparently he is friends with Quentin and likes the film. When I go to Camp John Waters in a few weeks, I have no doubt someone will ask him for a full opinion.

MadMan
08-31-2019, 07:24 AM
Apparently he is friends with Quentin and likes the film. When I go to Camp John Waters in a few weeks, I have no doubt someone will ask him for a full opinion.

You totally should.

Margot Robbie gets all the props from me for this film, but I have been a fan of hers since Wolf of Wall Street.

Grouchy
09-06-2019, 08:41 PM
Watched this again. About my one slightly negative takeaway would be that I don't really get the point of the Spahn Ranch scene where Cliff beats up the "hippie". If anything, it seems to lessen the threat of the Family, which will already be lessened by the ending. The sequence could have ended with Pitt walking away and spared the confrontation until the finale, I think.

But still, this is beautiful stuff.

Peng
09-14-2019, 08:35 AM
Finally this is released here, after an absurd two-month delay than most everywhere. Enjoyed it immensely, and maybe some more thoughts later, but just want to say first that this may have QT's best/most beautiful/etc. final scene alongside Jackie Brown. A heavenly gate of such hushed awe and reverence opens up for Rick to enter an alternate history of what and who could be, but the recognition of that tragedy still lurks strong for both the audience and the film, so that we drift up away with the camera and can only observe a union between fact, fiction, and tribute fantasy from afar. Honestly still teary thinking about it.

transmogrifier
09-29-2019, 08:07 AM
May vie with Jackie Brown as Tarantino’s worst.

transmogrifier
09-29-2019, 11:18 PM
50/100

The least Tarantino-like Tarantino movie there has ever been, which is neither a good thing or a bad thing on the face of it, but his filmmaking has become so digressive over the years that his attempts here to wring genuine emotion out of nostalgia fall flat. His screenplays since, I don't know, Kill Bill, are basically a collage of "moments" strung together and hauled along by his unquenchable penchant for showboating and wickedly florid dialogue and thus they live and die on the quality of those moments (the big three Inglourious Basterds scenes, for example) rather than any accumulation of feeling or narrative momentum over the course of the entire film.

And in OUATIH, these moments are pretty much gone, and the dialogue is pedestrian in a way it has never been before, and basically none of the jokes land when they need to, and you're left wondering why we are watching Rick talk to a little girl for what seems 2 hours.

MadMan
09-30-2019, 12:00 AM
I liked the stuff with Rick and the little girl. Oh well.

Grouchy
09-30-2019, 03:05 AM
His screenplays since, I don't know, Kill Bill, are basically a collage of "moments" strung together and hauled along by his unquenchable penchant for showboating and wickedly florid dialogue and thus they live and die on the quality of those moments (the big three Inglourious Basterds scenes, for example) rather than any accumulation of feeling or narrative momentum over the course of the entire film.
This type of criticism I find kind of weird, because what you are essentially saying is that you think this movie is worse than Inglourious Basterds because the WWII epic has better set pieces or scenes, but you also seem to suggest that it's an inherent weakness of Tarantino as a writer to center the whole strenght of his plots around this type of intense sequences, which is something he has always done to some extent. I guess what I'm saying is that you're treating writing in general or a particular writing style as if it's some type of stunt. If it works, it works.

transmogrifier
09-30-2019, 03:34 AM
(a) This type of criticism I find kind of weird, because what you are essentially saying is that you think this movie is worse than Inglourious Basterds because the WWII epic has better set pieces or scenes, but (b) you also seem to suggest that it's an inherent weakness of Tarantino as a writer to center the whole strenght of his plots around this type of intense sequences, which is something he has always done to some extent. (c) I guess what I'm saying is that you're treating writing in general or a particular writing style as if it's some type of stunt. (d) If it works, it works.

(a) Yes.
(b) Yes. He is not good at building up to anything over the course of a movie as a whole (though some people obviously disagree with me with regards to Jackie Brown, for one). This is not a bad thing if the isolated scenes are entertaining in their own right, but it is deadly when they are not, as is the case here.
(c) I don't understand this. I'm talking about Tarantino in particular.
(d) Of course. It worked in Pulp Fiction and Death Proof, and mostly in IB. It just doesn't work here at all. The last scene had zero resonance for me at all.

Skitch
09-30-2019, 07:09 AM
I am enjoying the conversation and dont really have anything to agree or disagree with, except I dont understand (c) either?

Grouchy
09-30-2019, 06:39 PM
Well, bear with me and think of it a little in relation to another example - Raymond Chandler novels. Suppose you read The Long Goodbye or Farewell, My Lovely and then you read Playback, which I suppose every fan would consider the least good Marlowe book. Following your post, one could think "Chandler's plots are always a collage of seemingly random but important characters which appear late into the story, scenes of Marlowe being mean and sarcastic to people and a violent and tragic conclusion - his books live and die by the quality of those elements". Well, yeah. Every story lives or dies by its quality and shows more of its foundations and seams when it's not as gripping or effective.

Regardless, I don't think Hollywood is Tarantino's weakest film at all and I truly loved some of the stuff you deride like the scenes on set with the little girl.

Irish
10-01-2019, 12:49 AM
That Chandler's plots suck is a common criticism and (I thought?) widely acknowledged. What makes Chandler special is that, while plots matter to mystery stories, they don't to his.

Action adventures and crime pictures (or however you classify Tarantino's movies) usually require tight structures and good frameworks --- coherent stories with visible throughlines --- but that's never been Tarantino's strength or his main draw.

This is an odd case where I think both Trans and Grouchy are seemingly at odds but both simultaneously right. The approach is just different. Trans is more interested if OUATIH works as a standalone movie and Grouch is more interested in whether it works as Tarantino.

baby doll
10-01-2019, 03:11 AM
That Chandler's plots suck is a common criticism and (I thought?) widely acknowledged. What makes Chandler special is that, while plots matter to mystery stories, they don't to his.Chandler basically admits to this in his essay "The Simple Art of Murder," where he argues for the virtues of dramatic scenes in mystery stories over elaborately detailed plots.

Irish
10-01-2019, 04:20 AM
Chandler basically admits to this in his essay "The Simple Art of Murder," where he argues for the virtues of dramatic scenes in mystery stories over elaborately detailed plots.

I took that more as a veiled jab at Agatha Christie rather than an admission of weakness.

I agree, but I was also thinking of him in an academic sense. I haven't read a professional take on Chandler than doesn't immediately sidestep his plot issues the way Grouchy sidesteps them with Tarantino. I think effectively saying "Yeah, but ..." is a valid viewpoint in this case.

Nobody reads Chandler for the plot and I don't think people go to Tarantino movies expecting the story of their lifetime.

Pop Trash
10-01-2019, 05:05 AM
I seriously think Dazed and Confused is one of the unsung influences on this. Dazed also is very plotless and has people mostly hopping into cars with whatever is on the radio at the time in the car becoming the film's soundtrack.

EDIT: actually QT has been doing this since Res Dogs and Pulp Fiction. The "ooga chaka hooked on a feeling" song plays out in the same way in Dogs + the Statler Brother song Butch sings along to in PF. But those moments are stretched out for long patches in Hollywood closer to the hangout quality of Dazed.

Pop Trash
10-01-2019, 05:16 AM
I liked the stuff with Rick and the little girl. Oh well.

I do too. It's disarmingly sweet for a QT movie. Plus the "read the tea leaves" of the future generation reading a bio of Walt Disney, while he reads a dogeared pulp western novel. The performances help.

transmogrifier
10-01-2019, 07:55 AM
I seriously think Dazed and Confused is one of the unsung influences on this. Dazed also is very plotless and has people mostly hopping into cars with whatever is on the radio at the time in the car becoming the film's soundtrack.

EDIT: actually QT has been doing this since Res Dogs and Pulp Fiction. The "ooga chaka hooked on a feeling" song plays out in the same way in Dogs + the Statler Brother song Butch sings along to in PF. But those moments are stretched out for long patches in Hollywood closer to the hangout quality of Dazed.

I have a feeling that was what QT was going for, but I just don’t think he’s very good at tone and rhythm over the course of a film has a whole - he just doesn’t have it in him, or maybe he’s not all that interested in it - which is crucial if you really are shooting for a hangout film that accumulates sentiment, power, whatever as it progresses. Tarantino is excellent at tone and mood in the context of single scenes, no doubt, but the air leaks out when you string them together. So for me, it’s not about the plot per se because DAC is one of my favorite films of all time. It’s about the rhythm and timing. It’s all off.

MadMan
10-02-2019, 09:05 AM
I do too. It's disarmingly sweet for a QT movie. Plus the "read the tea leaves" of the future generation reading a bio of Walt Disney, while he reads a dogeared pulp western novel. The performances help.Oh, absolutely. Also it could reflect the fact that at one point Leo was just like that little girl-a serious child actor.

MadMan
10-02-2019, 09:06 AM
OUATIH doesn't really feel like QT's other movies, save for maybe Jackie Brown and possibly Death Proof. That's what I find so interesting about it.

Pop Trash
10-03-2019, 04:49 PM
OUATIH doesn't really feel like QT's other movies, save for maybe Jackie Brown and possibly Death Proof. That's what I find so interesting about it.

Kill Bill 2 has some moments of tenderness. It seems mostly aligned with that and Jackie Brown. It's so strange he made Jackie Brown after Pulp Fiction since JB feels like more of an old man movie than anything else he has made.

Grouchy
10-03-2019, 04:58 PM
Hahah that's right. He was never that subtle or contemplative again.

Pop Trash
11-25-2019, 05:38 AM
Rewatched this for the third time. Still really great. QT's direction is so effortlessly confident here. The camera is so graceful darting in and out and popping up on cranes and such. I know this has 10x the budget and he has clout to get any crew and cast he wants now, but this still shows lots of growth compared to eg. Pulp Fiction (which is obviously well directed too, but often feels '90s indie now in a way OUATIH does not). This just has a great fucking vibe and atmosphere even w/o dialogue. The period music and radio ads obviously help, but sound & image tie together in such a cozy way. I agree that PT Anderson seems to be an influence, probably Zodiac too, but his contemporaries are making QT competitive in the best way.

baby doll
11-25-2019, 06:15 AM
this still shows lots of growth compared to eg. Pulp Fiction (which is obviously well directed too, but often feels '90s indie now in a way OUATIH does not).Maybe because it is a '90s indie, whereas Once Upon a Time... is a 2019 studio production and will seem as much a product of its time in twenty-five years as Pulp Fiction does today--which is not a bad thing anymore than saying that The Maltese Falcon feels like a '40s Warner Bros. film or that Middlemarch reads like a 19th century English novel.

Pop Trash
11-25-2019, 06:44 AM
Maybe because it is a '90s indie, whereas Once Upon a Time... is a 2019 studio production and will seem as much a product of its time in twenty-five years as Pulp Fiction does today--which is not a bad thing anymore than saying that The Maltese Falcon feels like a '40s Warner Bros. film or that Middlemarch reads like a 19th century English novel.

Except OUATIH doesn't really feel like anything out of 2019. The cranes and dollies feel very much (appropriately) like Sergio Leone plopped down in 1969 Hollywood. Pulp Fiction has fine direction, but there's lots of handheld strolling down hallway shots and such. I realize some of this is crew talent + $$$ to be more ambitious on Hollywood but that's not everything. Tarantino is leaning into visuals and leaning less into dialogue to tell the story.

baby doll
11-25-2019, 04:34 PM
Except OUATIH doesn't really feel like anything out of 2019. The cranes and dollies feel very much (appropriately) like Sergio Leone plopped down in 1969 Hollywood. Pulp Fiction has fine direction, but there's lots of handheld strolling down hallway shots and such. I realize some of this is crew talent + $$$ to be more ambitious on Hollywood but that's not everything. Tarantino is leaning into visuals and leaning less into dialogue to tell the story.Just comparing the clips Tarantino uses from The Great Escape and The Wrecking Crew, there's a clear difference between those images and the rest of the movie in terms of film stock, lighting, makeup, etc. Crane shots aside, Once Upon a Time... simply doesn't look like a movie from 1969 (which is not to say that it needs to). Tarantino's film is certainly distinctive in the context of contemporary Hollywood cinema, but to claim that the film somehow transcends its own time is a bit much.

The other claim you're making, which doesn't seem to follow from the previous in any way whatsoever, is that Once Upon a Time... relies more on the physical action to tell its story than the dialogue. Personally, both this movie and Pulp Fiction strike me as pretty talky, but more to the point, I don't subscribe to the notion that physical action is inherently more cinematic than dialogue. Incidentally, movies from 1969 also had a tendency toward talkiness (Le Gai savoir, Katzelmacher, and Ma nuit chez Maud are three extreme, non-Hollywood examples, but one could also point to Take the Money and Run).

Pop Trash
11-25-2019, 06:39 PM
The other claim you're making, which doesn't seem to follow from the previous in any way whatsoever, is that Once Upon a Time... relies more on the physical action to tell its story than the dialogue. Personally, both this movie and Pulp Fiction strike me as pretty talky, but more to the point, I don't subscribe to the notion that physical action is inherently more cinematic than dialogue. Incidentally, movies from 1969 also had a tendency toward talkiness (Le Gai savoir, Katzelmacher, and Ma nuit chez Maud are three extreme, non-Hollywood examples, but one could also point to Take the Money and Run).

I would strongly argue that, yes, Sergio Leone or Peter Yates is inherently more cinematic than Godard or Rohmer (esp. the La Chinoise + Le Gai Savoir era Godard which are extremely didactic by design) just like I would strongly argue that Holy Motors or Mad Max: Fury Road are inherently more cinematic than, oh I dunno, The Class or Primer or something.

I think QT isn't as married to or in love with his dialogue as he used to be and is thinking more visually than before. There's lots of dialogue in Hollywood, sure, but it feels lived in and incidental rather than this famous scene, for example (which feels like it is all about the tete-a-tete dialogue as the camera is locked down on the side of the car).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ab7eVVG3I8s

baby doll
11-25-2019, 07:12 PM
I would strongly argue that, yes, Sergio Leone or Peter Yates is inherently more cinematic than Godard or Rohmer (esp. the La Chinoise + Le Gai Savoir era Godard which are extremely didactic by design) just like I would strongly argue that Holy Motors or Mad Max: Fury Road are inherently more cinematic than, oh I dunno, The Class or Primer or something.

I think QT isn't as married to or in love with his dialogue as he used to be and is thinking more visually than before. There's lots of dialogue in Hollywood, sure, but it feels lived in and incidental rather than this famous scene, for example (which feels like it is all about the tete-a-tete dialogue as the camera is locked down on the side of the car).I don't see how the dialogue in that sequence is less lived in or incidental than, say, the scene of Brad Pitt and Andie MacDowell's daughter talking in car in Once Upon a Time..., which likewise shows two people having a rambling conversation in the front seat of a moving car.

As to the larger point of what is or isn't cinematic, there's no reason to think film has an essence, much less that that essence is visual storytelling. What matters, whether it's a dialogue scene or an action scene, is the cinematic intelligence evident in the staging, cutting, and mixing of the sequence. In the case of Godard's La Chinoise, his cinematic intelligence comes through mainly in the juxtaposition of different discrete elements.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggUGM3_oqQ

Also, it's not clear to me why didacticism is opposed to visual storytelling. One could illustrate a didactic point through images just as well as through words.

Pop Trash
11-25-2019, 07:20 PM
Also, it's not clear to me why didacticism is opposed to visual storytelling. One could illustrate a didactic point through images just as well as through words.

But he doesn't? That scene is JPL blathering on and on like a college professor. It probably doesn't help that I think Mao Ze Dung was a piece of shit who killed tens of millions of his own people, but that's neither here nor there.

baby doll
11-25-2019, 09:00 PM
But he doesn't? That scene is JPL blathering on and on like a college professor. It probably doesn't help that I think Mao Ze Dung was a piece of shit who killed tens of millions of his own people, but that's neither here nor there.First of all, I don't think one can take La Chinoise as an unambiguous endorsement of French Maoists (the film ends with Anne Wiazemsky's character committing a stupid murder because she walked into the wrong apartment). In the clip, the film's ambivalent attitude toward French radicals of the period can be seen in the juxtaposition of Léaud's monologue with the non-diegetic cutaways that both illustrate and mock the argument he's making. In other words, instead of becoming less cinematic by virtue of being so talky, the film makes talkiness cinematic.

Dukefrukem
11-30-2019, 03:16 AM
Oh shit. Brilliant. From start to finish. More later. God damn.

Dukefrukem
11-30-2019, 03:27 AM
I think QT isn't as married to or in love with his dialogue as he used to be and is thinking more visually than before.

I got this sense too! Mostly through this entire film which is telling a story with swoopying crane wipes and ambient noise, radio chatter and non-speaking communication (the hippie hitchhikers). Compare this to RD or PF and it's night and day. That scene you posted is a perfect example, as would the diner scene in Death Proof, or any scene in Reservoir Dogs.

Dukefrukem
11-30-2019, 08:53 PM
I know it's commonplace to say these days, but Leo deserves an Academy Award for this performance. The entire one shot playing out the scene with Timothy Olyphant, going back in forth between (being an actor), playing an actor, coming in and out of character, hamming it up... that might be his best scene ever.

Pop Trash
11-30-2019, 09:30 PM
I know it's commonplace to say these days, but Leo deserves an Academy Award for this performance. The entire one shot playing out the scene with Timothy Olyphant, going back in forth between (being an actor), playing an actor, coming in and out of character, hamming it up... that might be his best scene ever.

I agree. I think it's his best performance to date, which means the Academy will ignore it and give him another award when he makes Jeremiah Johnson 2049.

Irish
11-30-2019, 10:00 PM
The entire one shot playing out the scene with Timothy Olyphant, going back in forth between (being an actor), playing an actor, coming in and out of character, hamming it up... that might be his best scene ever.

This was my favorite scene in the movie, partially because I got so wrapped up in the show-within-a-movie that I forgot the larger story, and partially because DiCaprio switches gears within the scene so effortlessly.

I like that Leo isn't afraid to look foolish or play weak men.

Dukefrukem
12-02-2019, 12:20 PM
This was my favorite scene in the movie, partially because I got so wrapped up in the show-within-a-movie that I forgot the larger story, and partially because DiCaprio switches gears within the scene so effortlessly.


Totally. I was trying to unwind the story inside the movie that I completely forgot about what this movie was actually about. It just sucked me right in.

Skitch
12-09-2019, 10:19 PM
I dug it, but an odd movie. Some of its scenes just...exist. They can even be entertaining, but some don't seem to go anywhere or contribute to the overall. Not a negative really...just a thought on first viewing. This is one I definitely need to see more than once to digest. Pitt and DiCaprio together are the best bits of the film. When it goes away from them together, I was less entertained.

MadMan
12-15-2019, 08:14 AM
I agree. I think it's his best performance to date, which means the Academy will ignore it and give him another award when he makes Jeremiah Johnson 2049.

I donno man Jeremiah Johnson 2049 sounds cool to me.

All kidding aside I agree. However Pitt is more likely to get an Oscar nom push imo. Especially since he has never won an acting Oscar.

TGM
12-15-2019, 01:49 PM
Pitt’s in a different category, though. He’s in supporting, while Leo’s in lead. So no reason they couldn’t both get a push. ;)

MadMan
12-20-2019, 03:49 AM
True. Also both Sam Rockwell and Woody were nominated for 3 Billboards. I almost forgot that.

Irish
06-30-2021, 04:46 PM
Tarantino's novelization is out this week:

https://bookshop.org/books/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/9780063112520

He's making the podcast rounds to promote it:

http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1239-quentin-tarantino

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5cdu4y60lq6QXyUbhMpVWH

Haven't listened to Rogan yet, dunno if I will (because Rogan), but the Marc Maron episode is wildly entertaining, and recommended if you're a fan of QT or this movie.

Skitch
06-30-2021, 06:29 PM
I've been listening to all of them.

Dukefrukem
06-30-2021, 07:21 PM
Tarantino's novelization is out this week:

https://bookshop.org/books/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood/9780063112520

He's making the podcast rounds to promote it:

http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episode-1239-quentin-tarantino

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5cdu4y60lq6QXyUbhMpVWH

Haven't listened to Rogan yet, dunno if I will (because Rogan), but the Marc Maron episode is wildly entertaining, and recommended if you're a fan of QT or this movie.

I can listen to him allllllllllllll day.

Also in the Rogan interview, he goes into a strech talking about cynical Hollywood in the 50s and 70s. Kinda reminds me of how people around here saying defining decade is pointless.

Skitch
06-30-2021, 07:48 PM
Kinda reminds me of how people around here saying defining decade is pointless.

lol what

StuSmallz
07-02-2021, 06:00 AM
The 5 wildest revelations from Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood novel (https://www.avclub.com/the-5-most-shocking-things-from-quentin-tarantino-s-onc-1847207576)

See? I told you guys that Cliff... ...killed his wife!

Skitch
07-02-2021, 12:54 PM
I can listen to him allllllllllllll day.

Also in the Rogan interview, he goes into a strech talking about cynical Hollywood in the 50s and 70s. Kinda reminds me of how people around here saying defining decade is pointless.

Hooooooly shit does he blast Linda Lee. Doubles down. Triples down.

StuSmallz
07-03-2021, 07:18 AM
Hooooooly shit does he blast Linda Lee. Doubles down. Triples down.That's because Quentin is a bit of a sociopath, if his movies weren't evidence enough already...

*shifty eyes*

Dukefrukem
07-03-2021, 02:29 PM
I mean, he kinda says he's fine with what she says, but doesn't take away that Bruce's behavior was documented before. QT just adapted that depiction.

Skitch
07-03-2021, 02:43 PM
I was referring to him calling her a liar. He says it multiple times.

Irish
07-03-2021, 03:11 PM
I mean, he kinda says he's fine with what she says, but doesn't take away that Bruce's behavior was documented before. QT just adapted that depiction.

It's weird he tries to make a serious argument when it's a fictional film and the characterization is obviously exaggerated for effect.

Like, QT fronting about fighting styles to Joe Rogan just sounds ridiculous.

Peng
07-03-2021, 03:24 PM
When the Bruce Lee thing first emerged after Cannes I kinda scoffed at it at first, because "depiction =/= endorsement" (or anti-endorsement) has always been a sticking point when discussing Tarantino's films and I've become wary of the nuance-less way many like to interpret them literally (which is admittedly tempting because of Tarantino's real-life self). But when finally watching the film, I was taken aback at the actual scene by how much it actually feels like Lee is being put down in his place. Even with factoring in the in-film context of it possibly being exaggerated conjecture of Cliff's daydream, and out-film context of Tarantino's "research", that still rubs me fairly wrong for one of the few (only?) PoCs in the film with minimal screentime, who's also a real-life famous Asian figure in Hollywood at the time that it was (and still is, tbh) rare in the industry, so the putting down of him troubles me a bit. Still loved the film overall and I don't exactly want it cut or reshot or anything (since it's already done), but I totally get how one Asian critic (I forgot who/which tweet) felt when watched it in theater with white people around him/her laughing at the scene.

Skitch
07-03-2021, 03:38 PM
People laughed at that scene? I didn't feel much of anything one way or the other.

Irish
07-03-2021, 06:57 PM
Pretty sure QT's lawyer visibly cringed when Quentin exclaimed, "Linda Lee lied. She's a liar."

Doubly weird bc almost everything Tarantino said about the genesis of "Kung Fu" was wrong, per Wikipedia, which also cited Polly's biography as a source. Like, he got easily verifiable facts wrong.

Also very ugly vibe when he claimed to be a fan of Bruce Lee but then shat on his legacy throughout the interview..??? Don't understand that.

Skitch
07-03-2021, 07:33 PM
I don't feel like he shit on Bruce's legacy. He made statements about Linda (I have no idea about the validity of either's statements). As a massive Bruce Lee fan, I wasn't the least bit offended by his portrayal in OUATIH...because I know its a movie, not a documentary. SPOILER ALERT...Sharon Tate didn't survive that night.

"per Wikipedia"...lol...cmon man. We will never know the truth on that. Hollywood does what Hollywood does.

Who came up with the first "volcano" movie in 1997??

Who came up with the first "comet" movie in 1998??

Who came up with the first "stuck in a computer program" movie in 1999??

Dukefrukem
07-03-2021, 07:50 PM
Who came up with the first "stuck in a computer program" movie in 1999??

Tron came out in 1982 though. ;)

Irish
07-03-2021, 08:45 PM
Every once in awhile the zeitgeist burps out a couple of movies or shows with the same premise. Shit happens. To apply such an interpretation to origin of "Kung Fu" would have been gracious.

But that isn't what Tarantino did.

Instead, he claimed Bruce directly plagiarized a Hollywood writer, and that his widow then lied about it in her memoir. That's vastly different than talking about the development of "Deep Impact" versus "Armageddon," or "Dark City" versus "The Matrix."

Times past, I would have agreed about Wikipedia. But I discovered last year there are A LOT of bootlegs online. Not just of obscure movies or first run films, but out of print books and decades-old magazine articles.

So you can start with Wikipedia and follow their sources, click around, google a bit, and find shit out, eg:

- Here's a TV interview where Bruce talks about "The Warrior" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLXYFEa0q58) a full year before "Kung Fu" debuted on television.

- Here's the 1983 Penthouse magazine article (https://www.scribd.com/doc/14666372/Bruce-Lee-Penthouse-Article) quoting an unnamed ABC executive saying they wouldn't cast Lee because of his size and his race.

- Here's an excerpt from Matthew Polly's biography of Lee (https://web.archive.org/web/20210130134124/https://www.martialjournal.com/the-truth-about-the-creation-of-the-kung-fu-tv-series/), which QT allegedly read, which directly contradicts his account of events. (Including the claim that Warners never "paid off" Lee ... except as soon as Lee lost the "Kung Fu" role, the TV division immediately offered him an exclusive development deal.)

That's about 5 minutes of research and I'm not even on Rogan's show claiming I read a fucking book have the inside scoop about "Kung Fu."

Irish
07-03-2021, 08:46 PM
Tron came out in 1982 though. ;)

I dub this "Best Nerd Burn of the Week, July, 2021."

Irish
07-03-2021, 08:56 PM
I don't feel like he shit on Bruce's legacy.

Tarantino called the dude's wife a liar, tactlessly brought up Lee's mistress, called "Enter the Dragon" garbage, accused Lee of being unprofessional and potentially dangerous on film sets, and generally described him as arrogant and borderline delusional (while actively comparing him to a movie character that Quentin made up and talks about like a 10 year boy talks about his favorite action figure).

The only positive things QT said were related to Lee's athleticism and the action sequences in "Fists of Fury."

Skitch
07-03-2021, 09:49 PM
Okay, maybe we just have different perceptions about Bruce's legacy.

The things you listed are only shitty if they are false and haven't been described by multiple other people over the years.

Ezee E
07-05-2021, 10:30 PM
My favorite part of the Rogan interview was him talking about Death Proof and the stunt sequences. Everything else seems like it's been talked about before. Probably Death proof too, but that was new to me.

Yxklyx
07-09-2021, 11:57 PM
When the Bruce Lee thing first emerged after Cannes I kinda scoffed at it at first, because "depiction =/= endorsement" (or anti-endorsement) has always been a sticking point when discussing Tarantino's films and I've become wary of the nuance-less way many like to interpret them literally (which is admittedly tempting because of Tarantino's real-life self). But when finally watching the film, I was taken aback at the actual scene by how much it actually feels like Lee is being put down in his place. Even with factoring in the in-film context of it possibly being exaggerated conjecture of Cliff's daydream, and out-film context of Tarantino's "research", that still rubs me fairly wrong for one of the few (only?) PoCs in the film with minimal screentime, who's also a real-life famous Asian figure in Hollywood at the time that it was (and still is, tbh) rare in the industry, so the putting down of him troubles me a bit. Still loved the film overall and I don't exactly want it cut or reshot or anything (since it's already done), but I totally get how one Asian critic (I forgot who/which tweet) felt when watched it in theater with white people around him/her laughing at the scene.

It's been a while since I've see this but yeah that scene really sticks out - like it's part of a different movie.

Ezee E
07-10-2021, 02:25 AM
Loving the book by the way. Can definitely hear Tarantino's voice in this, and there's enough differences and solo scenes that it adds more to this world that Tarantino had created.

Ezee E
07-15-2021, 12:38 PM
Really dug the chapter that has the Charlie Manson movie scene in it. It's just as simple of a scene as the movie, but still has the underlying danger that came with Manson, and a perspective from each of the three characters, all completely unaware of each other.

Ezee E
07-20-2021, 03:23 PM
Finished the book last night.

It's certainly complimentary to the movie, and it's own thing. Enjoyed the mix.

It's at its best when being able to add more context to certain scenes within the movie. Whether it's to show the danger of the Manson Family, the motivations of Charlie himself, or the background of Cliff Booth, Sharon Tate, or Cliff's dog, it's a very good read. It tends to ramble when getting a little too deep into Dalton's TV show plots, sometimes entire chapters about what the show was about. It does get more into the dynamic of Dalton and the young actress, in a way that probably wouldn't have worked on screen, but it does in the book.

Enjoyable if you're a fan of the movie, and it made me watch it immediately afterward, and like the movie even more.

Skitch
07-20-2021, 04:48 PM
I rewatched the movie last week. It gets better with each rewatch. Still not my fav from QT, but sweet flick.

Pop Trash
07-20-2021, 10:35 PM
That's about 5 minutes of research and I'm not even on Rogan's show claiming I read a fucking book have the inside scoop about "Kung Fu."

I listened to that whole interview. The gist I got (can't remember if QT explicitly says David Carradine) is that DC is the one who gave him the real true true on "Kung Fu" and Bruce Lee. Makes sense with his involvement on Kill Bill. I imagine QT thinks Bruce Lee was a boaster and kinda full of shit (which is true) and trusts the DC account of his "Kung Fu" casting.

Also, am I the only one more pissed about QTs dumbass take on Vertigo than on the whole Bruce Lee bruhaha? I cant wrap my head around someone who loves Brian De Palma so much trashing on Vertigo. Does he not see that the museum sequence in Dressed to Kill and the mall sequence in Body Double are ripped straight out of Vertigo? I mean I love De Palma too but I would never trash on Hitchcock esp. Vertigo. The kicker is that on the Bret Easton Ellis podcast QT admits he saw it once back in the 80s rerelease. Its astonishing to me this guy will trash on whats widely considered one of the best movies ever, massively influential on De Palma (and probably everybody else QT likes) based on one screening back in the fuckin 80s when he was all of like 20 years old. He probably thought he was giving a clever hot take back in his video stores and never stopped to consider maybe he is fucking wrong? Plus for a guy that just made a movie with people driving around and hanging out you would think he would like Vertigo since theres lots of driving around and hanging out in SF in Vertigo.

Also also if you wanna ignore the paywall on the BEE podcast with QT, I can DM you a copy of the MP3 if we are able to attach those through matchcut DMs (not sure). Its pretty long and entertaining even if QTs Vertigo take is shit.