criterionforum.org

Toland's Mitchell wrote: Sun Nov 10, 2019 8:04 pm I can see how it felt like a drag to some who were expecting a lot of action given the director's past films. But this one was different. To me, it felt like a Linklater film in the sense that it was a "hanging out" movie, and that it followed characters and their experiences as opposed to a plot-line. However, I loved the rambling, plot-less structure because the recreated 1960s Hollywood atmosphere, and the interesting characters within it, were very appealing to me. Of course, the fact I live in LA and work in film certainly helped. Seeing the streets/landmarks and knowing exactly where they are, seeing the various homages to film-making and Hollywood history, it hit very close to home for me. I also liked how QT tamed down his own fetish for violence. Essentially, how Once Upon a Time in Hollywood differed from a typical Tarantino movie is precisely what I liked so much about it.

Excactly. I think Tarantino also tamed another fetish: Script was not written to accomodate prolonged scenes of dialogue or monologues, but first time since Jackie Brown the movie had organic feel of an actual feature film so that the dialogue (and violence) actually served the mood and flow of the story.

My main problem with the movie is that as opposed to the characters played by Pam Grier and Robert Foster in Jackie Brown, I wasn’t that invested in the two main characters here to want to spend this much time with them. Not caring much for Rick Dalton, I grew somewhat restless during the amount of time devoted to the shoot of the Lancer pilot. I didn’t believe anything about the character of the child actress, I suppose it was meant to come off as cute ?

Spoiler

The historical revisionist climax was more audaciously done in Inglorious Basterds. The Manson family bumbling into the wrong house was oddly anti-climatic, though it did leave me with the intended sense of sadness that this was fiction.

I enjoyed the recreation of Hollywood in 1969 well enough.

The Curious Sofa wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 9:22 am My main problem with the movie is that as opposed to the characters played by Pam Grier and Robert Foster in Jackie Brown, I wasn’t that invested in the two main characters here to want to spend this much time with them. Not caring much for Rick Dalton, I grew somewhat restless during the amount of time devoted to the shoot of the Lancer pilot. I didn’t believe anything about the character of the child actress, I suppose it was meant to come off as cute ?

I think Cliff Booth is Tarantino’s most lovable character since Jackie Brown and I did enjoy Rick Dalton’s storyline a ton too. Child actress Trudi Frasee was a way beyond cute as the key side character of Lancer pilot sequence.

Spoiler

The historical revisionist climax was more audaciously done in Inglorious Basterds. The Manson family bumbling into the wrong house was oddly anti-climatic, though it did leave me with the intended sense of sadness that this was fiction.

Spoiler

Revenge of the Giant Face was extremely gratifying and original scene, but IB was a movie about hunting nazies, so ending it by torching much of the nazi elite is kind of a no-brainer. Once... on the other hand is not a movie about Manson murders, but a redemption story of two white macho males, who get their second chance for glory in Hollywood by ridding the world of bunch of psychotic hippies who were about to murder some innocent people and put an end to golden age of groovy feel good culture. Now that’s a Man Who Shot Liberty Valance -level fairy tale ending by Tarantino in regards of characters and complexity.

Slaphappy post_id wrote: I think Cliff Booth is Tarantino’s most lovable character since Jackie Brown and I did enjoy Rick Dalton’s storyline a ton too. Child actress Trudi Frasee was a way beyond cute as the key side character of Lancer pilot sequence.

I find the "lovability" of Cliff one of the most compelling and complex things about this film. He is fun, charming, and cool, but...

Spoiler

he's also a bit of psychopath. The wife-killing, the emotionless excessive beating of the tire-slasher at Spahn's ranch, and of course the cold-blooded viciousness of his dispatching of the Manson crew are all exceptionally disturbing. Maybe Tarantino intends for us to find all of that truly likable, but it seems a challenge, a provocation for the viewer to continue to stay emotionally connected to Cliff. His protective loyalty to people like Rick and George (bosses essentially) seems touching, but there's little sense that he's guided by any real moral principles. He glides by in the modest niche he's carved for himself because he doesn't want to go to jail and knows what to do to avoid it. His interaction with Pussycat seems a clear example of this.

The Irishman spoiler:

Spoiler

That being said, two of my favorite movies of the year so far are movingly centered on the tight friendship between an egomaniac and the psychopath who "carries his load."

Regarding the wife:

Spoiler

I was under the impression that it was intentionally made ambiguous seeing as Pitt himself says he knows the truth but that he won't share. I don't think we're supposed to know one hundred percent. But that hasn't stopped people from defending him too.

I thought Brad Pitt‘s performance was relaxed and likeable and DiCaprio is always best when he gets to show a lighter side but I had no strong feelings for either of the two lead characters. I thought the film and Margot Robbie did right by Sharon Tate though and everything with her was lovely, especially the scene where she goes to see The Wrecking Crew. The Manson family stuff also worked well and felt spot on.

I really wanted to like the movie more, Tarantino doing a film about Hollywood at this crucial period was full of promise but I came away feeling it was a rather empty experience. I’ll give it a rewatch at some point and maybe I’ll warm to it more, but with Tarantino my first impression tends to stick.

geoffcowgill wrote: Sun Nov 24, 2019 3:26 pm I find the "lovability" of Cliff one of the most compelling and complex things about this film. He is fun, charming, and cool, but...

Spoiler

he's also a bit of psychopath. The wife-killing, the emotionless excessive beating of the tire-slasher at Spahn's ranch, and of course the cold-blooded viciousness of his dispatching of the Manson crew are all exceptionally disturbing. Maybe Tarantino intends for us to find all of that truly likable, but it seems a challenge, a provocation for the viewer to continue to stay emotionally connected to Cliff. His protective loyalty to people like Rick and George (bosses essentially) seems touching, but there's little sense that he's guided by any real moral principles. He glides by in the modest niche he's carved for himself because he doesn't want to go to jail and knows what to do to avoid it. His interaction with Pussycat seems a clear example of this.

Cliff is a classical western hero in modern day setting. His straight-forward frontier morality is based on reactive tit-for-tat and not holding back or giving a second change after cards are on table.

Spoiler

Going for trade mark Tarantino ultra violence in final scene was set up by Cliff’s maiden LSD-trip.

Is that a full sized Locandina poster? Or are my eyes deceiving me and it couldn't possibly be a full 13x28?

I spent almost as long finally reading through this thread as I did watching this movie. Lots of interesting back and forth and dog with a bone stubbornness! But... I didn't care much for this. The oversaturation of cultural references to movies and TV shows in this was like eight times what it could sustain, and it proved highly distracting ("Let me drive past another movie marquee..."). This would have been less of a deal-breaker in a film that engaged me more, but alas I thought this never really arrived anywhere apart from the 25 minutes or so of the Margaret Qualley stuff in the middle. I found the action ending a bit embarrassing-- though I "get" what it's doing, it felt like a poor retread of the obvious precursor in QT's own filmography (I know y'all beat this one to death with a rotary telephone already, I'm just chimin' in l8). I'm fine with Pitt getting an Oscar for this, he's fun, but that's about the extent of this for me

I liked it a lot. Having not read the thread since the movie came out until now, I assume everything in terms of discussion is scorched earth so I'll just say I appreciated knowing that QT gave his actors a little more room to breathe and maybe not treating his words as sacred text. I don't know how much he did that on his 90's films, if at all, but this has easily a more natural flow to it than anything since Jackie Brown.

Spoiler

The choice Manson's followers make to hit Dalton's house instead feels less like tampering with history than QT illustrating the off-hand chance in them deciding to forgo the original plan. It's the catalyst for a rather splashy and incredible climax, but more than that it feels comfortable within the semi-bizzaro world Hollywood QT is showing here.

swo17 wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2019 2:21 pm

beamish14 wrote: Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:14 am I'm really fascinated by the use of visual effects in this, which were supervised by the great John Dykstra.
In particular, one sequence

Spoiler

with Dalton mentally casting himself inside of The Great Escape is very reminiscent of Forrest Gump, a film that Tarantino is a huge admirer of

Spoiler

I took this scene a different way--in the reality of this film, Dalton was actually originally cast in The Great Escape and shot at least that one scene for it but they decided he wasn't working and recast him with McQueen, to Dalton's great shame

FYI, since I just heard DiCaprio confirm this once and for all on WTF:

Spoiler

Rick Dalton was not cast in The Great Escape, what we see is Rick imagining what that might have been like, as he's probably had to answer questions about it and relive it many times by that point.

I didn't realize it was his daughter, Shannon Lee, who ratted him out to China and made the argument against the release. Was this knowledge before? She's not okay with a jokey version of her father, but she's certainly okay with using her dead father to sell bottled ice tea. I also know that category III films are practically verboten in Hong Kong, but not sure how violence on the level of a Tarantino film are accepted in China. Would that have posed an issue? I also don't understand how in 2020, a film can be banned in a country as powerful economically, socially, and with a militaristic force like China yet be afraid of bruising their ego.

Everyone is sensitive to bruised egos, and often moreso organisms (people, movements, governments) that establish a consistent existence of dominance and have less experience with day-to-day acceptance and de-sensitization to such ego-tests.

Just ask Winnie the Pooh.

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:40 pmI also know that category III films are practically verboten in Hong Kong, but not sure how violence on the level of a Tarantino film are accepted in China. Would that have posed an issue?

Tarantino talks about that in the interview. He was willing to edit some of the violence (which is what happened with Django Unchained, rendering the big shootout incomprehensible) but drew the line at cutting an entire scene. Also I wouldn't say Category III films are "practically verboten" in Hong Kong; local productions usually stay in the IIA-IIB range, in no small part because a film meriting a III would stand little chance of a mainland release, but it's still common for imports.

Today’s Tarantino project that will never happen: QT intends to write/direct five episodes of Bounty Law

domino harvey wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 3:36 pm Today’s Tarantino project that will never happen: QT intends to write/direct five episodes of Bounty Law

He's already written them and been talking about this for a while. Considering his apparently close partnership with Netflix, I wouldn't be surprised if they wrote him a blank check and provided him a bunch of resources to film them all for their streaming service, when he's ready

Never believe Tarantino's "next project' until you start seeing photos from the set once filming has actually commenced.

Monterey Jack wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:42 pm Never believe Tarantino's "next project' until you start seeing photos from the set once filming has actually commenced.

Wait, are you saying The Vega Brothers isn't happening?!?!

willoneill wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:04 pm

Monterey Jack wrote: Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:42 pm Never believe Tarantino's "next project' until you start seeing photos from the set once filming has actually commenced.

Wait, are you saying The Vega Brothers isn't happening?!?!

[imagines seeing Travolta and Madsen with Irishman CG botox jobs, yet still moving like men well into their sixties]

For those who haven't seen the movie yet, beware the blu-ray.com review, which not only spoils the film in the write-up but a spotlighted screencap ruins one of the best gags in the finale

therewillbeblus wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 3:23 am For those who haven't seen the movie yet, beware the blu-ray.com review, which not only spoils the film in the write-up but a spotlighted screencap ruins one of the best gags in the finale

I couldn't believe that choice of screencap when I opened the review. Good thing I had already seen the movie! I mean, the reviewer is entitled to their opinion on the film's polarizing finale, but to blatantly give away one of the key visual punchlines in it is flat-out irresponsible. [-X

It reminds me of that video that dropped a while back where those kids do a drive-by to the midnight line of Harry Potter fans, screaming the character death in book six and laughing at ruining their lives.