Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Quentin Tarantino)

[Irish]

Oof. The twitter reactions to this.

[Scar]

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.

[

Show Spoiler

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]

I thought this was bad, and almost entirely due to Tarantino's decision not to have an overriding plot.

[Ivan Drago]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

[

Show Spoiler

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]

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]

I initially wondered about the Bruce Lee treatment myself, but am intrigued by this reading:

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]

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]

One more take on the film, this time from K. Austin Collins over at Vanity Fair:

...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]

One more take on the film, this time from K. Austin Collins over at Vanity Fair:



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Rumor mill says a four hour cut may appear...