What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (Trailer) (1 Viewer)

Hal Fishbeck or Cal Worthington cameo?
The Real Don Steele refs were awesome.

Also, Snoopy vs The Red Baron, was one of my favorite songs as a kid.   And the timing of its use in the film might have been my favorite moment of the film.  It was just so classic at that moment.

 
The Real Don Steele refs were awesome.

Also, Snoopy vs The Red Baron, was one of my favorite songs as a kid.   And the timing of its use in the film might have been my favorite moment of the film.  It was just so classic at that moment.
See?  I totally want to see this and like it.

But QT just has to swing his “artistic” wang around and screw things up. 

 
Best movie I’ve seen in a few years. It was long but I seriously could have watched a few more hours. It was that enjoyable imo. Loved all the scenes Pitt was in, particularly with Bruce Lee and at the Manson ranch. Just the subtleties of movies that Tarantino gets that few do. 

 
fruity pebbles said:
Best movie I’ve seen in a few years. It was long but I seriously could have watched a few more hours. It was that enjoyable imo. Loved all the scenes Pitt was in, particularly with Bruce Lee and at the Manson ranch. Just the subtleties of movies that Tarantino gets that few do. 
Both of those scenes were awesome, and they're good examples of the range that film brings to the table.  The Bruce Lee scene was funny as hell, and the ranch scene was all slow-burn tension.

 
It is worth noting that the first chapter of Inglorious Basterds is subtitled "Once Upon a Time . . . In Nazi-Occupied France."  Just in case anybody needed another reason for thinking that this film begs to be compared directly to that one.

 
Ilov80s said:
Well not the whole time, but it was one of the funnest movies I have seen in awhile. I was never bored at all. We are just going to disagree quite a bit here. I don't want to talk in too much detail as to spoil it. 
Just got home from this.  I agree with you.  My wife, BIL and I laughed throughout the movie.  

I'm a huge fan of Tarantino and almost all his films---The Hateful Eight being one of the exceptions.  So I was happy he followed that one up with this great movie.  All 3 of us loved it.  

 
Another great thing is how well done all the "vintage" looking movie shorts they put into it were.  It is just a visually great movie

 
KarmaPolice said:
@Ilov80s - do you listen to the You Must Remember This podcast?  I've only heard a couple, but the Flimspotting guys suggested the season they covered 1969 Hollywood as a primer for people interested in the era covered here.  It's episodes 44-55.  
Knocked out the first two of these on my evening stroll.  Very interesting, I don't know much about this period.

 
Loved this movie.  It's probably not a movie many 18-30 year-olds would appreciate, but I think any guy over 40 will really enjoy it.  There were many scenes that didn't have a great deal of linkage to the plot; in fact there was not a strong plot at all, IMO. It was just a beautifully crafted and nostalgic re-working of some LA history.  And Tarentino's obvious foot fetish was most definitely on full display.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loved this movie.  It's probably not a movie many 18-30 year-olds would appreciate, but I think any guy over 40 will really enjoy it.  There were many scenes that didn't have a great deal of linkage to the plot; in fact there was not a strong plot at all, IMO. It was just a beautifully crafted and nostalgic re-working of some LA history.  And Tarentino's obvious foot fetish was most definitely in full display.
Yeah it was kind of like a Robert Altman movie where it’s kind of aimless (in a good way). 

 
I thought it was good, not great.   The RT scores are  about what I would expect (85/73)

Pitt was tailor made for his role but Leo’s felt a bit forced.

Tarantino always gives you something you haven’t seen before and I appreciate that immensely.  I also appreciated the nostalgia.

Biggest complaint is it was a tad too long with some scenes that didn’t add much to the story or character development.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I heard that Tarantino has plans to make only one more movie, and it’s Star Trek (?!?!) 

I really hope that’s not true. He’s still young and has his fastball. His movies at the least are always worth talking about. 

 
I heard that Tarantino has plans to make only one more movie, and it’s Star Trek (?!?!) 

I really hope that’s not true. He’s still young and has his fastball. His movies at the least are always worth talking about. 
He did say he plans on 10 movies- who knows if that is true. I really hope it’s not Star Trek next.

 
I enjoyed this a great deal - thought Pitt was fantastic throughout, but that Leo had the one most outstanding "Best Actor" sequence (when he was shooting the Western). Loved the scene at the ranch, just so good.

If you don't know who Sharon Tate is, it's a totally different (and much lesser) movie. That lack of knowledge eliminates the impending sense of dread that otherwise hangs over her scenes, and strips the poignance of seeing her as a kind, young and beautiful talent who should have her whole life ahead of her.

I think the foot fetish stuff was played for a self-knowing gag, and I hated the over-the-top violence at the end, which again I thought was probably intended almost as a gag but still put me off.

 
I enjoyed this a great deal - thought Pitt was fantastic throughout, but that Leo had the one most outstanding "Best Actor" sequence (when he was shooting the Western). Loved the scene at the ranch, just so good.

If you don't know who Sharon Tate is, it's a totally different (and much lesser) movie. That lack of knowledge eliminates the impending sense of dread that otherwise hangs over her scenes, and strips the poignance of seeing her as a kind, young and beautiful talent who should have her whole life ahead of her.

I think the foot fetish stuff was played for a self-knowing gag, and I hated the over-the-top violence at the end, which again I thought was probably intended almost as a gag but still put me off.
8 ####IN WHISKEY SOURS?

Also I’ve read some convos on Twitter and apparently there are people who saw it who didn’t know who Manson was, had zero context or knowledge of who was real and who wasn’t. I find that baffling given these were adults and not teens but I can imagine it would significantly alter one’s viewing of the film

 
Really good movie. Some awesome cameos as with most QT films.

Brad Pitt is pretty studly for 55 years old....

 
I thought it was good, not great.   The RT scores are  about what I would expect (85/73)

Pitt was tailor made for his role but Leo’s felt a bit forced.

Tarantino always gives you something you haven’t seen before and I appreciate that immensely.  I also appreciated the nostalgia.

Biggest complaint is it was a tad too long with some scenes that didn’t add much to the story or character development.
This is my review as well. 

Pitt was really great. 

 
PS can't wait to see this. I wasn't going to, it didn't seem all that interesting. But a friend saw it and told me it was awesome.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saw it today. Put off reading this thread until I saw it. I've enjoyed all QT movies as well as everything with BP, even Interview with a Vampire and Meet Joe Black.

So, I was really looking forward to this one. I was not disappointed and I was not overly jazzed.  I rank it right in the middle of the pack of the existing 9 QTs. I like Pulp Fiction the best and Django at the bottom even though I still liked it too.

I doubt very seriously that any Oscar noms are coming. The acting was ok but not any jump off the screen grab a trophy performances- unless you have 4 legs.

On the way home I was talking with my wife and told her I read he's only directing one more movie. I'm 5 years older than QT and I know he worked in a video store and watched like every movie available in his youth and was influenced by classics in each of his previous movies. I was trying to think what genre he has yet to touch, I came up with:

Prison - 48 Hours, Papillon, Midnite Express, Cool Hand Luke

Native American exploitation- Billy Jack, Tell them Willie Boy is Here

Bikers- Born Losers, The Wild One, Easy Rider

My wife says, what about Sci-Fi? I'm thinking nah, he's not into space stuff effects.

Then I just see that he's already written the first R rated Star Trek. So wifey wins again!

 
Pitt & his dog Brandy stole the movie.

I certainly did not expect that ending at all.

well done
One of the things I love about the ending is that one of the recurring gags of QT's movies is that he nearly always includes a Mexican standoff somewhere in the film.  This was a nice one, in the sense that the Manson cultists and the audience both think that Pitt is just being held at gunpoint.  Pitt is the only person who knows that he has a lethal weapon at his disposal that he can sic on his opponents.  It was a Mexican standoff but Pitt is the only one who knew it.

[/SPOILER]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I enjoyed this a great deal - thought Pitt was fantastic throughout, but that Leo had the one most outstanding "Best Actor" sequence (when he was shooting the Western). Loved the scene at the ranch, just so good.

If you don't know who Sharon Tate is, it's a totally different (and much lesser) movie. That lack of knowledge eliminates the impending sense of dread that otherwise hangs over her scenes, and strips the poignance of seeing her as a kind, young and beautiful talent who should have her whole life ahead of her.

I think the foot fetish stuff was played for a self-knowing gag, and I hated the over-the-top violence at the end, which again I thought was probably intended almost as a gag but still put me off.
I agree on the concept of having a background with her for maximum gravity.  The ranch and final scene really took it to a suspense level of almost horror.

Robbie’s role was not beefy but her ability to convey that hope and buoyancy raises the stakes perfectly, she was just sensational 

 
I’ve read some convos on Twitter and apparently there are people who saw it who didn’t know who Manson was, had zero context or knowledge of who was real and who wasn’t. I find that baffling given these were adults and not teens but I can imagine it would significantly alter one’s viewing of the film
People really should bone up on the history behind movies like these before seeing them.  Other than people like me who already lived through most of history.

 
Thought they wasted Pacino. Bruce Dern was great. Barely recognized Luke Perry's character.  
What more would you or could you have done with Pacino though? I think his character is just a place holder archetype of old studio Hollywood but he’s also somewhat of a guy in Leo’s shows as the studios were at the front end of a wave.  

There’s a theme that maybe I have to see here to It again, identity and ultimately replaceability, maybe in life, certainly in Hollywood.  Cliff is a double, Rick is up against guys who are his type, including McQueen, Sharon has a “type” with Polanski and the other guy(and even Manson fits that mold).  

 
I agree on the concept of having a background with her for maximum gravity.  The ranch and final scene really took it to a suspense level of almost horror.

Robbie’s role was not beefy but her ability to convey that hope and buoyancy raises the stakes perfectly, she was just sensational 
I was so filled with dread for about 30 minutes or so- just in sheer terror for what I was about to see. It was genius.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What more would you or could you have done with Pacino though? I think his character is just a place holder archetype of old studio Hollywood but he’s also somewhat of a guy in Leo’s shows as the studios were at the front end of a wave.  

There’s a theme that maybe I have to see here to It again, identity and ultimately replaceability, maybe in life, certainly in Hollywood.  Cliff is a double, Rick is up against guys who are his type, including McQueen, Sharon has a “type” with Polanski and the other guy(and even Manson fits that mold).  
No way Pacino was wasted, it was a perfect piece for him. He’s just obnoxious and ridiculous in large doses at this point in his career.

 
The background nostalgia was awesome and did sell the period. I was 11 in 1969 and I saw alot of familiar bathroom/kitchen products, signage, marquees, billboards and radio noise that you do not see today. 

 
Sigh.  I am still wrestling with this one, but I definitely seem to like it a bit less than just about everyone in here.  Feels like my typical response to a newer QT movie- moments of greatness, but for me didn't feel great as a whole.  Didn't love the last scenes, and dammit with the narration.   Some surprising moments of sweetness and I did like it more than django and H8, but I still didn't fall for it.  

 
Don't know if I need a spoiler for this, but just in case:

So when Pitt refused the BJ from #####cat asking about her age, was that a subtle jab at Polanski?

Also the scene with Bruce Lee was amazing.  I wanted it to go on for about 5 more minutes.
 
Don't know if I need a spoiler for this, but just in case:

So when Pitt refused the BJ from #####cat asking about her age, was that a subtle jab at Polanski?

Also the scene with Bruce Lee was amazing.  I wanted it to go on for about 5 more minutes.
Yeah I could definitely see that. I thought it seemed out of character/out of time but that makes a lot of sense. 

 
Sigh.  I am still wrestling with this one, but I definitely seem to like it a bit less than just about everyone in here.  Feels like my typical response to a newer QT movie- moments of greatness, but for me didn't feel great as a whole.  Didn't love the last scenes, and dammit with the narration.   Some surprising moments of sweetness and I did like it more than django and H8, but I still didn't fall for it.  
Kurt Russell narrating is random and it's crutchy for sure. That was the only flaw for me. I don't know how much we can discuss the ending here or when it's ok to include spoilers though. 

 
Don't know if I need a spoiler for this, but just in case:

So when Pitt refused the BJ from #####cat asking about her age, was that a subtle jab at Polanski?

Also the scene with Bruce Lee was amazing.  I wanted it to go on for about 5 more minutes.
Maybe, it could also show you more of B Pitt's character in what he would or wouldn't do.

 
Kurt Russell narrating is random and it's crutchy for sure. That was the only flaw for me. I don't know how much we can discuss the ending here or when it's ok to include spoilers though. 
Maybe I need to PM you.  

The v.o. was a big one for me (no surprise), but another ding for me was QT going back to the well with this stable of actors a little too much - notably Zoe Bell who I mostly think is bad every time I see her.   Other than that, I do feel that a love for that era and/or a mild working knowledge of people involved in the house next door is needed to fully appreciate and love it, and I am not sure I had enough of either.   I don't think it had the highs of the best QT stuff, but certainly didn't dip to the lows of the stuff that I really don't like from him.   Good movie, I am glad I saw it in the theater to give some money to a non-Marvel product, just didn't love it like it seems most early reviews do.  

Tons of positives, mostly the acting as usual.  I thought both Brad and Leo were great, but also loved the little girl on the TV show.  For me a big standout was Margaret Qualley as #####cat.  Just mesmerizing and unlike most of the other's depicting the girls of the The Family, she was able to show why people could have gotten sucked into to that world.  

 
Maybe, it could also show you more of B Pitt's character in what he would or wouldn't do.
That's more how I took it, especially with the backstory on Pitt's character and his wife.  QT seemed to have a reverence for the real life people, so I am not sure he was taking subtle shots at one of them.  

 
Maybe I need to PM you.  

The v.o. was a big one for me (no surprise), but another ding for me was QT going back to the well with this stable of actors a little too much - notably Zoe Bell who I mostly think is bad every time I see her.   Other than that, I do feel that a love for that era and/or a mild working knowledge of people involved in the house next door is needed to fully appreciate and love it, and I am not sure I had enough of either.   I don't think it had the highs of the best QT stuff, but certainly didn't dip to the lows of the stuff that I really don't like from him.   Good movie, I am glad I saw it in the theater to give some money to a non-Marvel product, just didn't love it like it seems most early reviews do.  

Tons of positives, mostly the acting as usual.  I thought both Brad and Leo were great, but also loved the little girl on the TV show.  For me a big standout was Margaret Qualley as #####cat.  Just mesmerizing and unlike most of the other's depicting the girls of the The Family, she was able to show why people could have gotten sucked into to that world.  
I definitely love the nostalgia factor and have a pretty decent knowledge of the real people in the film so that migth have helped me enjoy it more. Qualley was great and alluring but also probably the least accurate of the girls. For the most part none of them every really showered and Manson tried to pimp them out or emply them as strippers but nobody was willing to pay or hire the girls. 

 
I definitely love the nostalgia factor and have a pretty decent knowledge of the real people in the film so that migth have helped me enjoy it more. Qualley was great and alluring but also probably the least accurate of the girls. For the most part none of them every really showered and Manson tried to pimp them out or emply them as strippers but nobody was willing to pay or hire the girls. 
Fair enough - she just might be in there because the had the best feet then.  It's just that listening to that podcast it's hard to imagine singers and famous people letting Charlie hang around just because of the girls and the sex at the beginning if they were all disgusting.  

 
Without getting into it too much, I feel like there might have been too much back knowledge needed pre-movie for that that ending to work.  I don't think it was laid out very well who all those people were, or why we would cheer along with QT at the results of the ending.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top