Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Posts: 7757
Joined: August 2012
yea i’d sell my soul to the devil so i could see this in 35mm

enjoy it while you can

Posts: 19639
Joined: June 2012
About the ending:
I'm listening to the soundtrack now and the track that plays over the last scene and into the credits is so beautiful and well put. The ending of the film, with Sharon inviting Rick in is both so bittersweet and melancholic. Makes me feel so many emotions.
This film. Like I said, the more I think about it the more I love it. It's up there with Tarantino's best films imo.

It's just so weird to realise that he's really adamant on making only one feature film after this and then to retire. Like, I don't want him to retire directing films dammit lol

Posts: 304
Joined: April 2010
Nomis wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 7:00 am
So glad people are seeking out the 35mm screenings

Anybody here who's seen the 70mm print and the 35mm? Or have they only released this on film in 35mm?
70mm here in NYC.

Posts: 22439
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
I just got out of this movie and I legitimately don’t know what to think about it.

Maybe I’m stupid and I’m missing something. But, like, nothing actually happened. I enjoyed watching it, the cinematography, acting, and soundtrack were amazing. But once the credits rolls I found myself thinking...is that it?

What am I missing?

Posts: 3323
Joined: September 2013
Location: Copenhagen
The film is pretty much perfect up until
the grotesque violence ensues.
Tarantino saves it by ending on a beautiful and heartwarming note.

Qualley is wonderfully weird and DiCaprio is surprisingly great.

Last edited by Ruth on August 17th, 2019, 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: this is pretty vague but still better to use spoiler tags just in case

Posts: 42394
Joined: May 2010
MyCocaine wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 3:59 pm
The film is pretty much perfect up until
the grotesque violence ensues.
Tarantino saves it by ending on a beautiful and heartwarming note.

Qualley is wonderfully weird and DiCaprio is surprisingly great.


Posts: 19639
Joined: June 2012
Considering how intensely horrifying the actual murders that took place in Tate's home were... The grotesque violence to the Manson family members was in pure service of the story in this film. Completely putting Tate out of harms way, she's not in a single violent scene in the film. Also my theatre was in stitches when those members were killed lol
Tarantino ridiculed the Manson family. They were reduced to nobodies really, just like Manson himself got a non noteworthy part in the film. Which I thought was both a great decision and all they deserve and it also fitted with his sort of dreamy memory/what if of 1969 hollywood.
I'm a John G wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 10:50 am
Nomis wrote:
August 17th, 2019, 7:00 am
So glad people are seeking out the 35mm screenings

Anybody here who's seen the 70mm print and the 35mm? Or have they only released this on film in 35mm?
70mm here in NYC.
How was it?

Posts: 2727
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
m4st4 wrote:
August 15th, 2019, 6:08 pm
Oh boy, do I have a lot to say. Might have to sit on it for a while first, let it all settle down.

First of all, surprisingly, DiCap was my fave. Loved his portrayal of a washed out has been Rick Dalton. Pitt, on top of his majestic charisma, has a more favorable character to play with, DiCap has to be a fucking loser most of the time and it’s so good to see such a magnificent actor give it all like that, mad respect!

Margot Robbie? Hmmmm... Isn’t that the question of the day. I had a pleasure to watch this with three persons very much close to me, with various knowledge of the subject at hand, and I believe Tarantino definitely failed in, at least, one segment here.
If you didn’t know about Sharon Tate prior to this movie, I’d easily forgive you for thinking she was totally useless here. Pretty, nostalgic, cute and innocent... but also useless. Why he chose to go that route, I have no idea, not a sliver of danger aside from that hilarious driveway scene.
Would the movie work without her? Sorry but nope.
Couldn’t she be better integrated in the whole narrative? Oh, very much so.

Now, look, this is still a QT movie and of course we talked about it extensively driving back home and I do believe there’s plenty of precious here and I did like (even love) many segments. Didn’t even feel the length like my co-audience.
And yes, the finale was cathartic and QT is playing on many clever levels here, something that, in my opinion, wasn’t the case in Django and H8... in a way, this is his ‘Zodiac’ moment.
But I still believe some of the narrative joints could’ve been better ‘stitched together’, especially in regards to Mrs.Tate.

On the positive side, it feels constantly lived in, alive, more natural than perhaps ever before in a QT movie... and goddamn it did I love the main duo! Give us a whole Netflix series about those two!

I’m going to stop here because it’s too late here and I might say more (and better structured) tomorrow, but I’ll add just one more thing.
Yes, I did feel a slight relief seeing Cliff Booth ANNIHILATING those damn dirty hippies in the end. Yes, I did feel like Sharon Tate’s memory was well preserved and sacred, even with another historical switchero. Yes, I get that this is a fictional story in which QT tells us so many different things all in one go: that we are violent in nature, that USA is violent in nature and media plays along most of the time, that this is a fiction and therefore he can do whatever and, finally, that Rick Fucking Dalton deserves a cinematic happy ending, as well as Sharon, the character, the muse.
But god damn it, did it feel sour in my mouth still.

Maybe that was the whole point? Catharsis, but with a shortest charge ever.

It’s not perfect QT, not the best. I’d put it in the middle. Basterds, Pulp and Kill Bill still the best.

4 and a half feet out of five. *I was debating four, but have you seen that scene in the theatre?
Couldn't agree more.

I'd also add that even though intentional, to give that a slice of life feeling, the first half of the movie is very meandering and without purpose. The feeling is strengthened by those continues shots of people just cruising around in their cars. Again, totally intentional but to me it made the film overlong a bit. A tighter edit would have still got the feeling across and be beneficial.

After seeing the film, I'm less annoyed by what he did to Bruce Lee. QT does show him as a giving teacher as well, and
the result of the fight isn't as straight-forward. Although, I read somewhere that it was Pitt's intervention to not shoot the end of the fight. In the script Cliff supposedly wins the fight.
Plus, the film basically ridicules everyone in Hollywood, while also being a love letter to that time. So no beef there.

Oh, and I also loved the slight jabs at Polanski :P Especially the ones made by McQueen. This little Polish shit will indeed find ways to fuck this up.

Posts: 2679
Joined: January 2009
Location: Budapest, Hungary
I saw it two days ago and I'm going to see it a second time tonight, I'm really looking forward to how it will change on second viewing.

Now, I didn't have that sort of immediate, bombastic reaction as those I've had after seeing Basterds or Django. This is a completely different kind of film, and I can understand how a lot of people are confused by it. But I also have to point out that I'm not sure Basterds and Django are that good - I mean as good as I thought they were after seeing them for the first (or even second) time. I'll explain this below.

I don't have a full opinion about Hollywood at the moment, but my first impressions would be along these lines:
The movie looks and is beautiful, it is truly gorgeous. And on one hand, I think this is a very mature, very intelligent and very subtle film from QT. When I'm thinking about films, the qualities that make a film, I'm always leaning towards these sort of projects - films that are subtle in their way of storytelling, films that are less "telly", more "showy", if you know, what I mean. Surprisingly, this is a QT film that I would consider a very visual film, even if it's not spectacular. But the long takes, the long shots, the slow pace all serve this sort of "visual storytelling" approach (editing included). It's unlike Basterds or Django or Kill Bill where a lot of entertaining, loud and spectacular things happen - there's a lot going on in those films. Not here. This is very quiet compared to those films in terms of spectacle and plot.

In form it kinda resembles Pulp Fiction in my eyes. If Pulp Fiction came out in 2019, I'm pretty sure people would be left as confused by it as they are now by Hollywood. The lack of an obvious plot or story, a number of characters that are not obviously connected to each other, and the fact that the whole film seems like an impression of a certain time and space in history.

But even though I think this is one of the more subtle (if not the most subtle) QT films, some aspects of it I just don't get. Like the narration thing annoyed me, especially when it became very prominent towards the end of the film. I know it must be an homage to a forgotten era of filmmaking, and he utilizes it in other films as well, but it was just so, so, so much, and it just felt like a very clunky means of storytelling to me. I know QT is not stupid, he does narrations on purpose, but I really didn't like it, I didn't know why the film needed it, especially this much narration. This is where the film becomes a weird hybrid of different storytelling and filmmaking techniques, where you thought you figured the film out, but then it suddenly becomes something else entirely, and you're left wondering why it had to change the rules.

Like, Pulp Fiction stays in the same "lane" throughout its runtime, it never changes approach, style - the only thing that stands out is when Mia draws the geometric shapes in the air, which always bothered me. Basterd is all over the place with the "Hugo Stieglitz" introduction piece in the middle of a scene and stuff like that, but that whole movie is silly and wild, so it doesn't stand out that much. Here, these sort of things bothered me in a way because they felt completely unreasonable in context. It felt like some of these were just done for the sake of it and nothing more.

With all this said, I still highly admire what QT has done here, I especially liked the long Lancer shooting scene where Leo fucks up his lines. It was drawn out, but in a good way. I really could've seen more of that.

Now, the violent ending is something that I just didn't make my mind up about yet... do I like it? Is it gratuitous? I don't know, I'll probably have an answer after I've seen it again tonight. Even though the murderes committed a horribly gruesome and violent crime in reality, I wasn't sure that having this sort of fantasy revenge on them served any purpose... I mean it was funny, and I get the symbolic undertones of it, but it just didn't have that sort of shocking, bombastic effect on me. These sort of overly violent scenes worked much better for me in Basterds and Django and Hateful Eight. For some reason.

Anyway, I'll see it again tonight.

Posts: 7757
Joined: August 2012
Okay, so I also did watch this again today. Man I love this movie - spoken like a true QT “fanatic” lmao.

Look, I’m no movie critic. I don’t write well thought out analytical crap. But I just live for the experience and have always thought a film, first and foremost, has always been about that primarily. It just has everything I love about movies, both externally and internally. It just speaks to you. The second time around made me appreciate all of the details, including the acting of literally everyone involved, so much more.

not spoilers really but just in case
It’s just so beautiful and charming, and dreamy and wistful. It makes you happy like a kid to just be able to submerge yourself into that world, both the 60s and the world of filmmaking, but it holds you away just far enough to make you bittersweet to realize it was all a mere fantasy. And... then there’s that 3rd act.

Post Reply