View Full Version : Review, "Once upon s time in Hollywood."
Averageman
08-05-19, 09:45
A great movie.
A failing actor (Di Caprio) his stunt double (Pitt) are facing the end of their careers in Hollywood and a series of events leads them to a revisionist history meeting with the Manson gang.
If you grew up in the 60s, or know a bit about the Manson Family, you'll love this movie.
Honesty had the entire theatre laughing out loud, plus it has flame throwers.
ramairthree
08-05-19, 14:19
I love watching movies made in or set during this era.
Great cars, and when I was a kid all the women in the look of the era.
Are cool cars, mini skirts, go go boots, etc. well represented in this movie?
The wife and I loved it as well. Knowing the history, I really was not looking forward to seeing the killings but the movie did it very well. I’ll leave it at that so as not to spoil it.
The setting is way before my time. Even before the time of my older brother, who was born in 66. However, I love this time period for some unknown reason. I love the musical score and music from that era (or modern music that sounds like it). I love the set, the costumes, the general "look" of things.
I thought the movie was great.
I saw it last night, my dad grew up in the San Fernando Valley during that time and was 15 in 1969. I've actually been to the address on Cielo Dr, but the house was demo'd in the 1990s and was replaced with a new address.
The music, the KHJ recordings used, cars, costumes etc were fantastic. Dad loved it, I really enjoyed it. I really liked the part at the Spahn Ranch with Brad Pitt and Bruce Dern. The family claimed they were there with permission, but no one really believed it and I'm glad that was included along with showing the filth they were living in at the Ranch. If only the ending was how it really went down.
I think it was, at least for me, Tarantino's best film to date.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-06-19, 13:49
I was mildly disappointed with it. It was a well made movie that I'm sure will be nominated for many awards, BUT, it didn't feel like a Tarantino movie to me. I enjoyed the ending, but maybe the movie didn't mean the same to me as I'm 30 years old and did not experience the era.
The reviews on this movie are so so at best. I was really looking forward to it, but at least now my expectations are pulled back a bit. Review to follow.
PB
Tarantino sucks, he needs to stick to blacksploitation remakes. It's really the only thing he understands.
All his "alternative history" stuff comes off like a comic book.
The Dumb Gun Collector
08-06-19, 17:52
Excellent movie. I saw it with two friends (all of us are in our 40s) and my wife on a second night. My favorite QT movie since Pulp Fiction. I actually LIKED his characters, which isn't always easy.
Just saw it, I liked it but then I lived through the dirty hippy era. The ending made me think of the line from Tremors "Broke into the wrong damn rec room didn't you".
Averageman
08-06-19, 20:06
I'm glad it's been well received here, it's not got a lot of word of mouth recommendations here.
I remember that era and a couple of Sharon Tates movies.
I don't know how many times I've read helter skelter.
Yeah those folks were pure evil, I am sure some in the theater thought I was nuts because I was laughing my ass off at the end, if you didn't know the back story you likely didn't get it.
I'm glad it's been well received here, it's not got a lot of word of mouth recommendations here.
I remember that era and a couple of Sharon Tates movies.
I don't know how many times I've read helter skelter.
It's a nice fairy tale sounding movie, but I don't think I could enjoy it because I know what actually happened. It's like that piece of crap he made Inglourious Basterds. Nobody actually killed Hitler so it isn't entertaining and it's borderline offensive.
The fact that Kasabian actually got an immunity deal makes the whole premise even more offensive.
If somebody made a movie about 9-11 where Brad Pitt suddenly killed all of the terrorists with a machine gun and saves the day, I don't think I'd be able to enjoy that either.
The wife and I loved it as well. Knowing the history, I really was not looking forward to seeing the killings but the movie did it very well. I’ll leave it at that so as not to spoil it.
I had the same concern.
A great movie.
A failing actor (Di Caprio) his stunt double (Pitt) are facing the end of their careers in Hollywood and a series of events leads them to a revisionist history meeting with the Manson gang.
If you grew up in the 60s, or know a bit about the Manson Family, you'll love this movie.
Honesty had the entire theatre laughing out loud, plus it has flame throwers.
Do you generally like QT movies? Very hit or miss for me, usually miss. Many are mad at his portrayal of Bruce Lee apparently. If you're going to see a QT movie for accuracy or realism of any kind, and easily offended, you probably should not go to a QT movie is my response to that.
Tarantino sucks, he needs to stick to blacksploitation remakes. It's really the only thing he understands.
All his "alternative history" stuff comes off like a comic book.
He's wildly overrated, that's for sure.
It's a nice fairy tale sounding movie, but I don't think I could enjoy it because I know what actually happened. It's like that piece of crap he made Inglourious Basterds. Nobody actually killed Hitler so it isn't entertaining and it's borderline offensive.
The fact that Kasabian actually got an immunity deal makes the whole premise even more offensive.
If somebody made a movie about 9-11 where Brad Pitt suddenly killed all of the terrorists with a machine gun and saves the day, I don't think I'd be able to enjoy that either.
That can be said for a lot of WW2 movies. The events never happened so its offensive
ramairthree
08-07-19, 09:55
He's wildly overrated, that's for sure.
He has a knack for nailing the late 60s early 70s drive in, B movie, exploitation, etc. vibe while incorporating elements of genius, that some previous genius did as groundbreaking work.
And I appreciate that. But at the end of the day he is the master of making homages to films so bad they are good while paying homage to some great, ground breaking films.
It’s like nobody is better at making modern versions of velvet Elvis’s with an occasional Sistine Chapel picture on them.
He has a knack for nailing the late 60s early 70s drive in, B movie, exploitation, etc. vibe while incorporating elements of genius, that some previous genius did as groundbreaking work.
And I appreciate that. But at the end of the day he is the master of making homages to films so bad they are good while paying homage to some great, ground breaking films.
It’s like nobody is better at making modern versions of velvet Elvis’s with an occasional Sistine Chapel picture on them.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I find the sum of its parts does not usually add up to a good movie experience with most of his stuff, much of it just garbage. Lot of his stuff starts out well, then just goes off the rails into total fail, ruing what could have been a solid movie. I grew up watching exactly the movies he tries to emulate/make homages to films to, and I still don't find them usually worth watching. Those movies were my era, but seeing era homages films over and over, not always even well done. I couldn't even get through Death Proof, it was just way too stupid for me, and I sat in the movie theaters Sat afternoon circa 70s as a kid watching those movies. I did like Jackie Brown which was a quality version of the exploitation genre.
Averageman
08-07-19, 14:36
Do you generally like QT movies? Very hit or miss for me, usually miss. Many are mad at his portrayal of Bruce Lee apparently. If you're going to see a QT movie for accuracy or realism of any kind, and easily offended, you probably should not go to a QT movie is my response to that.
He's hit and miss with me. I would guess he's batting about 400 at this point.
Reservoir Dog's, Jackie Brown, Hateful Eight (Directors Cut), were pretty all pretty good. The rest, well they have their moments but...
I don't watch a QT film to be educated or to see a great work of art, I watch it for the pure nostalgia and entertainment value. Suspension of knowledge and beliefs may(will) be necessary and if you have a problem with that QT might not be for you. He also has a knack for picking the right sound track, I don't like all his work, batting about 500 or 600 for me, but with the 90+% of crap coming out of hollyweird now days that's not bad. Big plus is his movies are totally lacking in "woke", that makes them worth watching right there.
That can be said for a lot of WW2 movies. The events never happened so its offensive
There is a difference between "Saving Private Ryan" which never really happened and a hypothetical film about the Warsaw ghetto uprising where the jews actually won and then went on to liberate Aushwitz.
There is a difference between "Saving Private Ryan" which never really happened and a hypothetical film about the Warsaw ghetto uprising where the jews actually won and then went on to liberate Aushwitz.I was thinking more along the lines of Kelly's Heroes. But I'm totally fine with the Jewish uprising, and Hitler being killed in a movie theater so long as it's not presented as historical accuracy.
I was thinking more along the lines of Kelly's Heroes. But I'm totally fine with the Jewish uprising, and Hitler being killed in a movie theater so long as it's not presented as historical accuracy.
So I guess what I was trying to say is there are some things that just aren't ready to be "funny" or "enjoyable" yet. When I was in high school, I was really digging "The Final Countdown" and probably would have loved to see a modern aircraft carrier take on the Japanese Imperial fleet before Pearl Harbor. But I was a kid then, and now I understand that some people would never be able to actually enjoy something like that and that for a few others it would be like forgetting what actually happened.
So I guess I'm glad that The Final Countdown ended the way it did.
So I guess what I was trying to say is there are some things that just aren't ready to be "funny" or "enjoyable" yet. When I was in high school, I was really digging "The Final Countdown" and probably would have loved to see a modern aircraft carrier take on the Japanese Imperial fleet before Pearl Harbor. But I was a kid then, and now I understand that some people would never be able to actually enjoy something like that and that for a few others it would be like forgetting what actually happened.
So I guess I'm glad that The Final Countdown ended the way it did.
I didn't find it offensive just idiotic and ruined an otherwise fun movie which he seems to do with a lot of movies.
I liked "Pulp Fiction". Loved "Inglorious Basterds". The "Kill Bill" series was fun and entertaining. "Django Unchained" has some nice moments. "Reservoir Dogs" was a classic the day it was released. In general, I'm a fan of his work. This one, however, was about two and a half hours of boredom to get to 10 minutes of greatness. Loved the ending. Who didn't? Except Steyr... The title now makes perfect sense, but most of the time building up to the end bored me half to sleep.
Not sure what the dig against Bruce Lee was all about. Was he not what we've been led to believe he was? I've never thought the man was some sort of super-natural fighting force, but wasn't he a good fighter? Was this legendary man all talk?
It was a nice night out with the wife, but this one isn't as good, in my opinion, as his previous movies.
There is a difference between "Saving Private Ryan" which never really happened and a hypothetical film about the Warsaw ghetto uprising where the jews actually won and then went on to liberate Aushwitz.
I completely agree with you on this. This is one reason I hated Inglorious Bastards.
But, I think it is more acceptable with a smaller incident in history, as is the case with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.
I have not been a fan of anything Tarantino did since Jackie Brown. I actively avoided most of his movies since then, did not make it 20 minutes through the Hateful 8, and loathed Inglorious Bastards.
But I think Once Upon a Time In Hollywood was the best thing he has ever done.
He really knocked it out of the park with this movie. I would expect him to get academy award nominations for best screenplay, best picture, best director, as well as best actors for Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio.
He perfectly recreated the time of 1969 for a segment of Hollywood--from the sets, to the wardrobe and accouterments, to the soundtrack. The plot and characters were well drawn and entertaining. At brief times I thought things dragged, but everything had a purpose and tied together in the end. There was also signature Tarantino quirky characters, which was quite enjoyable. There were also He did an amazing job of establishing fictitious characters in a parallel history line that would interact with and intersect with real characters.
I liked "Pulp Fiction". Loved "Inglorious Basterds". The "Kill Bill" series was fun and entertaining. "Django Unchained" has some nice moments. "Reservoir Dogs" was a classic the day it was released. In general, I'm a fan of his work. This one, however, was about two and a half hours of boredom to get to 10 minutes of greatness. Loved the ending. Who didn't? Except Steyr... The title now makes perfect sense, but most of the time building up to the end bored me half to sleep.
Not sure what the dig against Bruce Lee was all about. Was he not what we've been led to believe he was? I've never thought the man was some sort of super-natural fighting force, but wasn't he a good fighter? Was this legendary man all talk?
It was a nice night out with the wife, but this one isn't as good, in my opinion, as his previous movies.
I think the scene with Bruce Lee was to establish how tough Cliff was. Bruce was kind of full of himself at this stage of his life and I don't see that scene as really knocking him but more as a scrape between a tough big guy and a tough little guy that was stopped at a draw before it escalated into something really bad. Mild spoiler alert but Bruce bouncing back from that last throw down shows how tough he was, the real fight that would have started then would not have been pretty. To go along with this, the roof top scene where Cliff goes shirtless and the flat scene were setups that for an old guy he is not someone you really want to mess with.
Actually the clues were there about the Cliff and Brandy team early on, the feeding scene was a big tell. I don't feel that the film was mostly boring, it was character development about an aging team of cowboy partners somewhat down on their luck making their way the best they can while building to the final showdown. It was also classic QT with little tells inserted throughout and little details that authenticate the time frame like smoking and hairy armpits.
I think the scene with Bruce Lee was to establish how tough Cliff was. Bruce was kind of full of himself at this stage of his life and I don't see that scene as really knocking him but more as a scrape between a tough big guy and a tough little guy that was stopped at a draw before it escalated into something really bad. Mild spoiler alert but Bruce bouncing back from that last throw down shows how tough he was, the real fight that would have started then would not have been pretty. To go along with this, the roof top scene where Cliff goes shirtless and the flat scene were setups that for an old guy he is not someone you really want to mess with.
Actually the clues were there about the Cliff and Brandy team early on, the feeding scene was a big tell. I don't feel that the film was mostly boring, it was character development about an aging team of cowboy partners somewhat down on their luck making their way the best they can while building to the final showdown. It was also classic QT with little tells inserted throughout and little details that authenticate the time frame like smoking and hairy armpits.
Interestingly enough Lee worked with Sharon Tate and had been to the home a few times. Lee actually became a suspect for a time because a pair of glasses were found at the scene and he had recently lost his glasses. But the prescriptions were different enough to rule him out.
Loved the ending. Who didn't? Except Steyr..
Well, one thing I've learned about movies is that it is best to actually go to see the movie before you critique it.....
As we walked out of the theatre I asked my wife 'how can I make this up to your?'
I didn't hate the movie quiet as much as she did, we both liked the last 10 minutes or so; we both enjoyed the Bruce Lee portion; I liked the portion with Bruce Dern, as well as when he was making the movie and interacting with the kid, the wife was meh.
Actually, pretty good convo about the movie over a late dinner, total for the evening, a little over a hundred. Worth it? Well, yeah, because I happen to enjoy hanging with the wife, movie, no.
There is a difference between "Saving Private Ryan" which never really happened and a hypothetical film about the Warsaw ghetto uprising where the jews actually won and then went on to liberate Aushwitz.
There's a huge difference between injecting a story line and characters into historical events vs just making history up as it suits your fancy as a film maker. There's a line there. Does not see difficult to see to me. Personally, I never liked those "what if" movies or shows where it's based on say the Germans winning WWII and such. They hold no interest for me personally.
Here is a good write up on the movie,
https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/13/tarantinos-upon-time-tribute-masculine-heroism/
It affirms my feelings, this is not your typical QT or Hollywood current product, not PC no SJW BS, a throwback to the way they used to make movies with flawed people trying their best get by and do the right thing. I am so sick of what has been done to franchise movies like Star Wars that a simple movie like this was really refreshing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.