Film Once Upon a Time In Hollywood (2019)
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Just seen it and I pretty much agree with all of that. It was a stylish flick with some great performances, but overall it felt like for large parts of it absolutely nothing was advanced and the pay off didn't quite justify any of that. Also agree with you that all the Margot Robbie scenes seemed completely wasted, you were kinda waiting for her to have a major role at the end but it just .. doesn't happen? It's weird.
I'd probably give it a 7, purely because again the acting/cinematography is top tier, but the plot itself is really bland and people spend a lot of time not really doing anything important. I don't think you can justify that much nothingness in a film of this length. It does feel a bit like Tarantino got lost up his own arse with this one, which is a shame because all the ingredients were there for a fantastic film, he just didn't quite nail it.
I thought this too. Like he can just do this movie and pretty much assume "I'm Quinton Tarantino people are gonna love this because it's me"
I wouldn't be as gushing or elaborate as Collin is here but he hits on a bit of what I liked about the film
At the same time though, I'm not at all surprised to see reactions like @AaronRedDevil's. If you're someone who has loved all of Tarantino's films up to now then you may have an issue with this as it doesn't really deliver what you might think of as maximum Tarantino. I could easily see it be divisive among Tarantino fans.
However, if you're someone who is more agnostic when it comes to Tarantino (personally I think Death Proof is trash, Hateful Eight is very poor, ditto KBV2, IB is a mix of brilliant and tedious, the last act of Django is a let down, etc.) you might find more to enjoy here than in any of his more recent work.
I also think you have to have a fair awareness of the Tate murders and their significance to Hollywood. To my mind Robbie's character is central to everything the film is about but I can see how it would leave some puzzled as she's on the periphery of the plot for most of the film.
I loved it. Can't wait to see it again. I understand it won't be for everyone and it certainly didn't feel like an obvious Tarantino picture.
It's more a series of long sequences than a conventional structure that we are used to seeing, but I loved spending time with these characters during this period of history.
I think over time it will definitely be seen as right up there with his best work, perhaps second only to Pulp Fiction
It's more a series of long sequences than a conventional structure that we are used to seeing, but I loved spending time with these characters during this period of history.
I think over time it will definitely be seen as right up there with his best work, perhaps second only to Pulp Fiction
You may have been right but the cartoon ending spoils it.
6 seems like a pretty high rating for something you really dislike no?
I may have disliked it. But everything else was very well done. Acting, cinematography, tension in the camp scene. I'll probably like it a little more if saw it a 2nd time. I think the length hurts the movie.
Ah that makes sense. Yeah really long movies I love when I am at home and can pause for the bathroom or to get food but in the theatre it feels a lot more draining for the long ones.
For all those critical of Robbie’s role... The movie is not really about Sharon Tate, or indeed the Mansons. Tate and the Mansons are vital characters in the film as far as context goes, but I’d stop short of calling their plot absolutely ‘central’ to the film. Tarantino delicately weaves the Manson/Tate storyline into this plot and it works brilliantly in my opinion. To me, the premise is the exploration of an endlessly fascinating time in history with gorgeous design/music/costume/cinematography etc through the lens of a struggling actor and stuntman. That’s enough of a story to get by without any inclusion of Tate or the Mansons - evidently Tarantino wanted to include them in the film, but he did so as a flourish rather than as the film’s central focus.
To end on a rant... I find the ‘what’s the point of this film’ line of thinking to be incredibly daft. By this logic, what’s the point of any work of art? One can dislike a film (and let’s be clear, I have no issue with those that dislike it) without virtually objecting to the mere existence of it. That’s actually a really immature thing to say. It seems to come from those with some vendetta against - or inherent dislike of - Tarantino... go figure.
To end on a rant... I find the ‘what’s the point of this film’ line of thinking to be incredibly daft. By this logic, what’s the point of any work of art? One can dislike a film (and let’s be clear, I have no issue with those that dislike it) without virtually objecting to the mere existence of it. That’s actually a really immature thing to say. It seems to come from those with some vendetta against - or inherent dislike of - Tarantino... go figure.
Wouldn’t mind seeing it again in 35mm, hopefully there’s some cinemas showing it in London later this month.
Well generally the point is to tell a story. For some reason QT decided to take a really good one and make it run-of-the-mill.
Just a fairly random series of unconnected and unnecessary scenes that only serve a masturbatory nostalgic purpose, all of which could be cut and would not affect the film anyway, which ultimately had no story, and went nowhere, yet taking hours to do that. Self-indulgent shite.
I enjoyed it. For the first 20 minutes or so, I wondered where this was all going and if there was any plot, but eventually as I settled into the characters and the atmosphere of the whole thing, it all started clicking together.
Pitt and DiCaprio were excellent, as was Margaret Qualley.
In my opinion, everything happened for a reason and it all led up to those final moments. No scenes were really wasted, even though some of them seemed a bit silly or pointless at the time. For me, the story was about the enduring friendship of DiCaprio and Pitt and how their lives led up to that fateful moment.
Some people might feel a bit let down by some of the humour, and the tonal shift at the end and I understand that. I thought the end was great.
Pitt and DiCaprio were excellent, as was Margaret Qualley.
In my opinion, everything happened for a reason and it all led up to those final moments. No scenes were really wasted, even though some of them seemed a bit silly or pointless at the time. For me, the story was about the enduring friendship of DiCaprio and Pitt and how their lives led up to that fateful moment.
By having such an experience and subsequently being introduced to Tate, I imagine the fairytale ending of being introduced to Polanski and getting both their careers back on track. Once upon a time and all that.
Some people might feel a bit let down by some of the humour, and the tonal shift at the end and I understand that. I thought the end was great.
The loyalty between the two leads was established, DiCaprio standing by somebody who was being shunned due to rumours of killing his wife, trying to get him stunt work and employing him as a driver/gopher. Pitt being a constant source of encouragement and support and readily doing all the shit jobs with no complaints. Then at the end of the film, they're destined to part company until fate intervenes.
We see DiCaprio practicing for a week to use the flame thrower, then we briefly see the flame thrower in the cupboard when pitt gets tools to fix the tv aerial, so it makes sense that it's next to the pool, and dicaprio can use it expertly at the films climax.
We also have seemingly pointless scenes where Pitt shows how well trained his dog is by making him wait for the food, and proves what a badass he is by fighting Bruce Lee. This is reestablished by the calm demeanour he displays during the tense scenes (arguably the best part of the film in my opinion) with the manson family at the ranch. All this serves to back up how cool and calm he is at the film's climax when he's held at gunpoint, and how the dog is so quick to attack on command.
Finally we have all the scenes with sharon tate, culminating in a bit where the Rolling Stones sing "baby, you're out of time" as the fateful hour approaches. All made to set you up into thinking you're about to see her death, then the film switches reality for a twist that i certainly didn't expect. Mostly due to the background build up of events and my purposeful avoidance of any spoilers prior to seeing the film. It's supposed to play to your expectations and people that think "what was the point of tate being in it?" are missing the point. it was a set up to make you expect to see her death but instead, the heroes save the princess and get their fairytale ending.
We see DiCaprio practicing for a week to use the flame thrower, then we briefly see the flame thrower in the cupboard when pitt gets tools to fix the tv aerial, so it makes sense that it's next to the pool, and dicaprio can use it expertly at the films climax.
We also have seemingly pointless scenes where Pitt shows how well trained his dog is by making him wait for the food, and proves what a badass he is by fighting Bruce Lee. This is reestablished by the calm demeanour he displays during the tense scenes (arguably the best part of the film in my opinion) with the manson family at the ranch. All this serves to back up how cool and calm he is at the film's climax when he's held at gunpoint, and how the dog is so quick to attack on command.
Finally we have all the scenes with sharon tate, culminating in a bit where the Rolling Stones sing "baby, you're out of time" as the fateful hour approaches. All made to set you up into thinking you're about to see her death, then the film switches reality for a twist that i certainly didn't expect. Mostly due to the background build up of events and my purposeful avoidance of any spoilers prior to seeing the film. It's supposed to play to your expectations and people that think "what was the point of tate being in it?" are missing the point. it was a set up to make you expect to see her death but instead, the heroes save the princess and get their fairytale ending.
I did think it was slow to get started.
Regarding Tate's role in the story:
It makes more sense once you know that the Tate murders have often been described as the death of an era in Hollywood. So, given the film is so much a love letter to Hollywood, it wasn't just the heroes and princess who got the fairytale ending, it was Hollywood itself.
Though the film itself can't really contextualise the murders in that way, so you'd really need to know a little about them going in to read the film like that, or indeed to note certain details. For example, Tex Watson did actually say "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's work" during the real life murders, which lends to the impact of that then being undermined by Pitt's character.
Though the film itself can't really contextualise the murders in that way, so you'd really need to know a little about them going in to read the film like that, or indeed to note certain details. For example, Tex Watson did actually say "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's work" during the real life murders, which lends to the impact of that then being undermined by Pitt's character.
Good point about the quote. I went to see it with a group of friends, and one of them sat through the whole film with no clue about tate or the mansons until we told them afterwards.
For the love of god, it was not about Tate and the Manson murders
I can only understand your frustration if you went into this film expecting a Manson story. There is so much more to this film - you are reducing it to nothing by saying that he did a poor job of rehashing the Manson story. It was never ever his intention to even attempt to tell solely a Manson story.Not even in movies should Bruce Lee get his ass kicked by someone Brad Pitt is playing.
Be interested to know if anyone went in without much knowledge about the Manson murders. I went to see this with a friend who had no idea, so most of the tension was lost on her during the range and ending scene.
I expected more than a wank session about the golden era of Hollywood that never really existed. It's always been an exploitative cesspit full of insecure feckups, vacuous starlets and freaky hangers-on. I'm supposed to feel good because a couple of lads saved the princess from the monsters? How is that interesting or novel?For the love of god, it was not about Tate and the Manson murders
I love The movies of QT but this doesn’t sit right with me either.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but that particular scene has caused a shit storm. Bruce Lee’s daughter is incredibly pissed off with the way Tarantino has portrayed her father.
I had no idea this was about the manson family and tate murders. Only afterwards was I filled in. So yes, the tension was completely lost on me.
Bruce Lee as an arrogant asshole was pretty funny
It was a decent movie, but I was left dissapointed. It felt fairly plotless and I wasn't really entertained. The ending was entertaining and had the film had some good moments, but I don't understand the raving reviews.
I think the counterargument to that is that Lee's estate have commercialised and commodified a certain version of his image for so long and so succesfully that it's fair game for a director like Tarantino to play with.
I think it was the best out of his last movies. Django and Hateful 8 were a bit cartoonish. It’s not an action movie though (and it’s a “pointless” movie if you’re looking from that perception) and I feel like it touches more serious topics than your regular Tarantino movies.
It’s a masterpiece in movie-making that you just have to sit back and enjoy.
It’s a masterpiece in movie-making that you just have to sit back and enjoy.
Is there a post credits scene?
More of a bonus bit than part of the story or anything
Why so much anger towards the film though? Genuine question.
Side note - spare me the princess and monsters line. That’s a misrepresentation and you know it.
Something like the Spike Lee film Summer Of Sam is probably a good reference point in that sense.For the love of god, it was not about Tate and the Manson murders
I thought the performances were good, particularly Di Caprio. The film itself dragged though.
Not for me, I’m afraid.
Not for me, I’m afraid.
I'm not angry at all. I'm a big fan of nostalgia about Hollywood and thought it was excellent from a technical POV. But that's really the only interesting thing about it.
Bruce Lee has been dead now for more years than he actually lived. I don't get the outrage about his scene, it was pretty enjoyable. He'd probably find it funny himself given he wasn't a complete pussy.
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and maybe Django Unchained aside, QT’s films have been just ‘OK’ and some have been downright irritating. His style is so boring and one dimensional. Can’t believe people still fall for his bullsheet.
I think Kill Bill and IG are still pretty good.
Watched it yesterday, nearly fell asleep. Absolutely shite.
What a waste of a quality cast, Quentin has filially disappeared up his own shithole.
6/10 for a movie you disliked?
Look up a couple of comments above. I replied to that exact comment
I generally liked this. I wasn't on board with everything it was doing but man does Mr. Tarantulino know how to shoot a motion fecking picture. This thing is so god damn stylish, so beautifully fleshed out on a world-building level, and the performances are all basically note perfect. So I can mostly forgive the fact that he's taken 161 minutes of my time to make the point that cinema (and by extension, those involved with cinema who are "past their prime") can still make a huge impact.