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)

Just saw it.  It was entertaining for the entire 161 minutes.  Like most Tarantino, I thought it added up to a little less than the sum of its parts but there were a lot of memorable scenes and performances.  The art direction, editing and soundtrack all contributed to create a Hollywood where anything was possible.

 
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.  
I agree with you on this point.  For example, it takes forever for Sharon Tate to be introduced as Sharon Tate.  I knew who she was because I was familiar with the back-story, but a viewer who went in knowing literally nothing about the film would have been oblivious to who this person was or why she mattered or what she tells us about the ending until like an hour or so into the movie.  And that robs the films of a lot of its tension and sense of dread.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I went back and re-watched Jackie Brown because this movie is getting compared to it a lot.  This is my third viewing of that movie, in comparison to probably 10+ each of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and both Kill Bills.  Probably Inglorious Basterds too.  

Maybe it is just me getting old or me being stupid, but I find this plot impossible to follow.  Yes, I get that Jackie is robbing Samuel L. Jackson of his money.  But the mechanics are extremely convoluted and not presented in a way that is easily understood or plausible even after you're told (very early on) that Jackie is unreliable and and can't be trusted to tell the truth on screen.  The characters are great, but I keep feeling the need to start over because I feel like I missed something critical to the plot.  It's not quite Primer, but it's kind of Primer.

 
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.  
Me too. As an aside, loved the scene on the boat with Pitt and his wife as a flashback.

 
So I went back and re-watched Jackie Brown because this movie is getting compared to it a lot.  This is my third viewing of that movie, in comparison to probably 10+ each of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and both Kill Bills.  Probably Inglorious Basterds too.  

Maybe it is just me getting old or me being stupid, but I find this plot impossible to follow.  Yes, I get that Jackie is robbing Samuel L. Jackson of his money.  But the mechanics are extremely convoluted and not presented in a way that is easily understood or plausible even after you're told (very early on) that Jackie is unreliable and and can't be trusted to tell the truth on screen.  The characters are great, but I keep feeling the need to start over because I feel like I missed something critical to the plot.  It's not quite Primer, but it's kind of Primer.
I've seen that too and I don't think it's an apt comparison. 

But, after 10+ viewings of JB and one viewing of OUATIH, I think JB is the better film. By a fair amount (and I really liked OUATIH).  

 
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.  
I don't think they were hideous or anything and for a lot of them I think the appeal was they were so young and willing to do anything. Just saying they weren't movie star good looking. But ofcourse it's a movie so you got to make everyone more attractive. I thought she was great in her role. 

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.  
I guess it's impossible for me to know but I thought it was very clear who Tex and the girls were, what they were there to do,etc. 

 
I agree with you on this point.  For example, it takes forever for Sharon Tate to be introduced as Sharon Tate.  I knew who she was because I was familiar with the back-story, but a viewer who went in knowing literally nothing about the film would have been oblivious to who this person was or why she mattered or what she tells us about the ending until like an hour or so into the movie.  And that robs the films of a lot of its tension and sense of dread.  
I thought both Leo and Steve McQueen very clearly pointed out that it was Polanski and Tate very early in the movie? The first time Leo and Pitt go to his house he points it out. 

 
I agree with you on this point.  For example, it takes forever for Sharon Tate to be introduced as Sharon Tate.  I knew who she was because I was familiar with the back-story, but a viewer who went in knowing literally nothing about the film would have been oblivious to who this person was or why she mattered or what she tells us about the ending until like an hour or so into the movie.  And that robs the films of a lot of its tension and sense of dread.  
I thought both Leo and Steve McQueen very clearly pointed out that it was Polanski and Tate very early in the movie? The first time Leo and Pitt go to his house he points it out. 
I was familiar with the real-life events beforehand but I thought Tarantino's script did a solid job of introducing the characters.  That's not always the case in his films.

The pacing in the first hour was very deliberate and the real Al Pacino and fake Steve McQueen were used as expository proxies to establish the backstory.

 
I'll be glad to watch a QT movie without that irritating Samuel L Jackson in it.

....Maybe that's why I liked Inglorious Basterds so much?

 
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.  
LOL, that would be so QT to do that, but Qualley was on Kimmel recently and said she has ugly feet and tried to talk Tarantino out of showing them.  You can tell she was in total awe of getting to work with Brad Pitt. 

So I went back and re-watched Jackie Brown because this movie is getting compared to it a lot.  This is my third viewing of that movie, in comparison to probably 10+ each of Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and both Kill Bills.  Probably Inglorious Basterds too.  

Maybe it is just me getting old or me being stupid, but I find this plot impossible to follow.  Yes, I get that Jackie is robbing Samuel L. Jackson of his money.  But the mechanics are extremely convoluted and not presented in a way that is easily understood or plausible even after you're told (very early on) that Jackie is unreliable and and can't be trusted to tell the truth on screen.  The characters are great, but I keep feeling the need to start over because I feel like I missed something critical to the plot.  It's not quite Primer, but it's kind of Primer.
Hmmm, I cannot agree.  I love Jackie Brown like crazy (it is my favorite QT film more days than not) and feel it is easy to follow. :shrug:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saw it again. A masterpiece. Huge props to the editor, so many great cuts. I didn’t notice it the first go around but just wow, it’s Oscar worthy. 

 
1- one of the stars of the movie and focal points of the story

2- it helps humanize someone who has become a footnote in recent history 

3- humanism in movies is good

4- that’s a main character and the main symbol for the film 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1- one of the stars of the movie and focal points of the story

2- it helps humanize someone who has become a footnote in recent history 

3- humanism in movies is good

4- that’s a main character and the main symbol for the film 
Plus, it shows a little bit of vanity on her part, as she took great joy in not only watching herself on screen, but seeing others around her reacting to her on-screen performance.  And what's wrong with a little vanity?  

 
Plus, it shows a little bit of vanity on her part, as she took great joy in not only watching herself on screen, but seeing others around her reacting to her on-screen performance.  And what's wrong with a little vanity?  
I dig. I take no issue with your interpretation even though mine was the opposite. I thought it showed her humility. She wasn’t a big arrogant star. She was a down to earth person in awe of even the slightest celebrity she had and happy she was able to please people. Her dirty feet propped up showed she wasn’t all that different from the Manson girls and that her being targeted and killed by them was a mistake. She wasn’t a piggy, she wasn’t emblematic of the Hollywood elite. 

 
Saw it today.  It was kinda boring. Like most Tarantino movies, there were some funny lines but overall....meh. 

It wasn't that great.

 
I loved this scene.  It humanized a character who needed to be humanized.
It was probably her most extended screentime.  Tarantino is going to release an extended cut for Netflix.  I'm curious if Robbie had more dialog in the unreleased scenes.  I'm also curious about why Tim Roth's character ended up on the cutting room floor.

Writing a character like Sharon Tate is outside of Tarantino's wheelhouse.  I think it works for her to be an ethereal spirit floating through the movie.  Poorly written dialog would have destroyed that illusion.

 
I am not reading the thread out of fear of spoilers, and I got my first bad news. 161 minutes? Oooof.  
It's Tarantino :shrug:

There are scenes where he spends more time than he needs to but generally, the movie moves along.  I didn't find myself checking my watch like I have with other Tarantino films.

 
It's Tarantino :shrug:

There are scenes where he spends more time than he needs to but generally, the movie moves along.  I didn't find myself checking my watch like I have with other Tarantino films.
I just -- at this point in my life, 161 minutes better viscerally explore the meaning of life in some way for it to hold me.  

I wasn’t bored for a single second. 
Cool. Both comments are taken with the requisite seriousness given the nature of those who post them. Not an issue really, then, the amount of time needed.

 
I just -- at this point in my life, 161 minutes better viscerally explore the meaning of life in some way for it to hold me.  

Cool. Both comments are taken with the requisite seriousness given the nature of those who post them. Not an issue really, then, the amount of time needed.
It won’t make you ponder the meaning of life, that’s for sure. It’s nostalgia and the fun of watching stars be stars. I heard someone say there hasn’t been a combo like Pitt and Leo since Newman and Redford. That’s probably true.

 
It won’t make you ponder the meaning of life, that’s for sure. It’s nostalgia and the fun of watching stars be stars. I heard someone say there hasn’t been a combo like Pitt and Leo since Newman and Redford. That’s probably true.
Ah, so along the lines of an Ocean's Eleven, maybe?  

 
Ah, so along the lines of an Ocean's Eleven, maybe?  
Yeah I can see some similarities there. OUATIH has much meatier and more serious acting roles as well as better dialogue- it’s just a higher caliber of movie imo but there’s a definitely similarities. And I say this as someone who is mixed on QT in general. 

 
That's the length of a typical Marvel or Star Wars movie.  ;)
Oh, I dig what you're saying, and those movies are way, way too long. All of them. Like absurdly long to the point where I don't go see them. I'll say this in my brief defense: I'm no stranger to long, provocatively done movies. I love new wave/punk rock cinema but nothing is holding me back from enjoying, say, a PT Anderson-length movie (think Boogie Nights and Magnolia, which I've seen combined about over at least seventy times) with all of its plot twists, character development, and other constructs. 

I just need to know that it's a director that is going to be saying something these days or be really entertaining to catch a movie that long. 

Guess I'd better invest in the big-size popcorn for this one.  

 
it didn’t need to be that long
We will disagree. Sharon Tate was a central figure in the story and that was her big scene. We got both Margot portraying her and Sharon herself on the screen. Tate is almost never mentioned under any context other than her being murdered by the Manson family or maybe being married to Polanski. I thought it was nice to show one of her movies and let people see her in a light that they almost never consider. She wasn't just a murder victim or a wife, but a real person and an aspiring actress. 

 
Oh, I dig what you're saying, and those movies are way, way too long. All of them. Like absurdly long to the point where I don't go see them. I'll say this in my brief defense: I'm no stranger to long, provocatively done movies. I love new wave/punk rock cinema but nothing is holding me back from enjoying, say, a PT Anderson-length movie (think Boogie Nights and Magnolia, which I've seen combined about over at least seventy times) with all of its plot twists, character development, and other constructs. 

I just need to know that it's a director that is going to be saying something these days or be really entertaining to catch a movie that long. 

Guess I'd better invest in the big-size popcorn for this one.  
I think it is up your political alley as well. It's quite a conservative movie. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is up your politicla alley as well. It's quite a conservative movie. 
I'd seen a quick bit that there are themes within that are quite conservative and I sort of disregarded it because when it comes to cinema, I'm trying to avoid spoilers and getting my political senses up and in the way of watching the movie qua movie. 

Speaking of which, OTW is on in six minutes here. 

eta* Oh, schnap. It's not. The Wild One is on. WTH? I came home from the store for this...

LOLZ.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd seen a quick bit that there are themes within that are quite conservative and I sort of disregarded it because when it comes to cinema, I'm trying to avoid spoilers and getting my political senses up and in the way of watching the movie qua movie. 

Speaking of which, OTW is on in six minutes here. 
Nothing spoilerish about it- but yeah I usually prefer not to know much about a movie before I see it. This movie, I think one needs to actually have some understanding of the events around Manson, old Hollywood, 50s/60s TV, etc. The more one is familiar with that history and era, the more enjoyable it will be.  Also, I DVR'd OTW (East Coaster here) and started in about 15 mins ago. Karl is stirring up some trouble at the union shop now. 

 
I think what I meant to say was, don't worry this isn't some 60s movie pushing crazy liberal hippy #### which is always a worry when I see something about the late 60s. 

 
Nothing spoilerish about it- but yeah I usually prefer not to know much about a movie before I see it. This movie, I think one needs to actually have some understanding of the events around Manson, old Hollywood, 50s/60s TV, etc. The more one is familiar with that history and era, the more enjoyable it will be.  Also, I DVR'd OTW (East Coaster here) and started in about 15 mins ago. Karl is stirring up some trouble at the union shop now. 
I guess I'm out of luck here. I've seriously got some West Coast non-prime mojo going on.  

 
I guess I'm out of luck here. I've seriously got some West Coast non-prime mojo going on.  
Weird, the app shows it's starting on TCM West right now. It's 8:00 over there, right? Not sure what kind of set-up you have but the TCM app lets you stream it live right now. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weird, the app shows it's starting on TCM West right now. It's 8:00 over there, right?
Yeah, I've got TCM HD and it showed at five apparently. I looked at TCM's channel lineup, and that's what I've got. I don't get TCM West, I get a version of the channel on DirecTV.  Brando is running from the cops in The Wild One as we write this out in my neck of the woods. 

Oh well. I can pony up the three bucks to watch it on amazon. No sweat if I really want to see it. I'm running The Conversation right now in the background from the other day, though, so that will come first if I watch a movie.  

 
Yeah, I've got TCM HD and it showed at five apparently. I looked at TCM's channel lineup, and that's what I've got. I don't get TCM West, I get a version of the channel on DirecTV.  Brando is running from the cops in The Wild One as we write this out in my neck of the woods. on

Oh well. I can pony up the three bucks to watch it on amazon. No sweat if I really want to see it. I'm running The Conversation right now in the background from the other day, though, so that will come first if I watch a movie.  
Oh so you must get the East Coast feed but on the West Coast. Anyway....this has drifted way off topic. Chime into the Movie Club thread if you want to discuss The Conversation or something else. 

 
Just saw it. Wife was bored out of her mind but I loved it. Won’t even go to the movies anymore because everything is a freakin reboot. An original script/screenplay? Novel idea. 

QT is twisted and makes you wait for it but the payoff is glorious. When I saw what path this was going down I laughed my ### off. I do agree that this appeals more to the 40-50+ crowd.  If you don’t have the Tate/Manson background you can’t get the joke. 

 
Saw it with the girlfriend yesterday, we both really enjoyed it.  I agree with some others that not having the historical context would make it a very different viewing experience, as if you do you just know where this is all headed.  But I found it fun some of the real people they worked in, and thinking "oh there's _______".  That goes for the cast as well, especially at the ranch - "is that ______?"

Pitt and Leo are both so good.  That Leo scene in the trailer was great.  And Pitt's character may now be my second favorite of all time, behind Kilmer's Doc Holliday from Tombstone.  From feeding the dog to Bruce Lee to the ranch to the boat....so many good scenes.

It was a really well done buddy flick, a hang with these two guys in that time and place. And I wanted to hang out with them in that time and place, so the length of the movie didn't bother me at all. 

 
My mother in law said this movie was awful. Like worst movie she’s ever seen.

So, I’m now confident that this movie is great and I’m excited to see it. 
Same here...Mom said it was ‘long, strange, and unsettling’.  Exactly what I wanted to hear.

 
This movie is an absolute masterpiece.   Need to watch it again because there is just so much going on that its easy to miss.  Unbelievable movie.

Some of the scenes are just jaw dropping.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top