IMDb / Wiki
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/...4,1000_AL_.jpg
Printable View
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.
This as a bad sign, gentsQuote:
Originally Posted by Henry Gale
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Trash
Death Proof is his third-best film, silly. Love that thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Gale
I'm cool with that!Quote:
Originally Posted by transmogrifier
Unrelated to that evaluation, Pulp Fiction is his least good film. Still good, just least good.
GreatQuote:
Originally Posted by Skitch
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
I can't really understand that viewpoint. To me, it's like saying The Godfather Part II is Coppola's weakest movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skitch
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
QT's rankings tend to be all over the place (similar to Wes & PT Anderson), but hardly anyone denies Pulp Fiction's greatness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skitch
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Trash
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
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.
Highly enjoyed it. It definitely fits the "once upon a time" feel, especially as the last scene plays in many different ways:
[]
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
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.
Pulp Fiction is the perfect movie to me. The dialog, supplemented by the performances (and not the other way around) is just so good.
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.
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.
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.
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?”Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zac Efron
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E