Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
Post Reply
radewart
Posts: 1519
Joined: January 2013
I don't know. Reading up on Lee from biographies and other articles, he was a guy who liked to talk big and brag about his fighting skills.
So, him talking about how he'd beat Cassius Clay(Muhummad Ali) is not that out of character and then having a playful little contest with Pitt's character is not that much of a stretch. I also don't really see it as a insult to Lee's integrity. I just don't think that Booth would be able to go toe-to-toe with Lee like he was.
But that's Tarantino's way of establish Booth as a tough fighter for the audience so there's no problem when he beats up the Manson family members later
FYI, I saw the movie a second time, which I rarely do anymore for theater releases. I enjoyed it even more the second time around. I think it's my favorite Tarantino flick next to Pulp.
Ruth
Posts: 8437
Joined: August 2012
Lee is shown
to be teaching both Sharon and Jay afterwards, and he seems to treat them fairly nicely. It’s not like he was shown to be an all around douchebag to everyone. He seemed sarcastic with that big talk, and the entire situation with Cliff seemed more like a spectacle in front of the people near them. He’s never really the kind of asshole people are making him out to be.

Speaking of misrepresentation, wouldn’t it actually have been worse if Tarantino took a more “philosophical” approach towards his portrayal? Like, really? Yet another East Asian master of martial arts whose only purpose to be shown in a film is to enlighten someone with their philosophical insight? Idk you guys decide.
User avatar
LelekPL
Posts: 3346
Joined: January 2015
Location: Poland
Contact:
Contact LelekPL
It may be a stereotype but Bruce Lee was in fact a philosopher. Sure, he was cocky when he was putting on a show, but if you watch interviews with him, he was very cerebral when it comes to his approach to life and fighting. Confident, yes, but not braggy or incompetent. Most of the "legends" about Bruce Lee come from the people who knew him, and they all confirm that he was the real deal when it comes to Martial Arts. His skills were never in question and any claim he would make would be backed up.

So if his portrayal in the film makes him a buffoon that would totally miss the mark of who he was and I'd get why his family would be pissed.
But I do buy the explanation by Tarantino why he loses the fight - Cliff is a fictional character. If the writer wants him to beat Bruce Lee, Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Muhammad Ali all at once then that's what's going to happen.
Last edited by Ruth on August 14th, 2019, 6:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: use spoiler tags
m4st4
Posts: 55632
Joined: May 2010
One fucking day before the movie and you just had to go and miss the spoiler mark on that one huh? Serv
Ruth
Posts: 8437
Joined: August 2012
y’all can I just harp on about this movie again. I really need to look into the controversy over the ending because I haven’t yet, and I wonder where my thoughts possibly strayed from others because it seems like I just can’t stop singing praises for that last act lol
I already mentioned this but I gotta say it again. What I really love about the final showdown between the family and Cliff/Rick is that Cliff via Tarantino manages to completely strip away any elements of fascination the family may have ever held to their name. If there was any mystery, terror or dread surrounding them (or that built up over the decades in collective memory) by the time Cliff asks their names, it’s all gone, and they’re all reduced to nothing but a bunch of drugged out, disorganized crazy idiots with way too much confidence and no skill to back it up. There’s no mystery or infamy, or any grounds for fascination (or even glorification). In a matter of seconds Tarantino completely overturns their entire image. What’s even more hilarious is that he does that with an actual Tex Watson quote lmao.

You’d be hard pressed to try to find a moment where you wanted historical revisionism from a film to be actual reality harder than this. I just didn’t know you could ever get so much satisfaction from seeing people so gruesomely annihilated. If this movie is Tarantino’s melancholic love letter to the Hollywood of the 60s, a bygone era, it’s like the ending is him personally raging against them for destroying all of it over the course of just one weekend. He gives it a fairytale-like ending, something the characters deserved, but with everything in mind, it barely registers as one.
User avatar
Allstar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
Ruth wrote: ↑
August 14th, 2019, 8:31 am
 y’all can I just harp on about this movie again. I really need to look into the controversy over the ending because I haven’t yet, and I wonder where my thoughts possibly strayed from others because it seems like I just can’t stop singing praises for that last act lol
I already mentioned this but I gotta say it again. What I really love about the final showdown between the family and Cliff/Rick is that Cliff via Tarantino manages to completely strip away any elements of fascination the family may have ever held to their name. If there was any mystery, terror or dread surrounding them (or that built up over the decades in collective memory) by the time Cliff asks their names, it’s all gone, and they’re all reduced to nothing but a bunch of drugged out, disorganized crazy idiots with way too much confidence and no skill to back it up. There’s no mystery or infamy, or any grounds for fascination (or even glorification). In a matter of seconds Tarantino completely overturns their entire image. What’s even more hilarious is that he does that with an actual Tex Watson quote lmao.

You’d be hard pressed to try to find a moment where you wanted historical revisionism from a film to be actual reality harder than this. I just didn’t know you could ever get so much satisfaction from seeing people so gruesomely annihilated. If this movie is Tarantino’s melancholic love letter to the Hollywood of the 60s, a bygone era, it’s like the ending is him personally raging against them for destroying all of it over the course of just one weekend. He gives it a fairytale-like ending, something the characters deserved, but with everything in mind, it barely registers as one.
You nailed it, great post.
I love how pathetic he makes the Manson family at the end so much. Imagine just imagine people being offended of QT’s violence against “women” aka the freaking Manson killers. Lmao. I took so much glee in it with no regrets.
Thrilled you and others can finally see this masterpiece!
User avatar
Vader182
Posts: 20188
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Contact:
Contact Vader182
as usual ruth wins

and if you'll let me piggy back on your point...
besides Cliff's "no it was dumber than that" about Tex's name, my favorite trivialization of Manson is the fact Manson, himself, isn't so much as name dropped the entire movie. He's not even important enough in the channels of history to warrant a name. He has been erased.

-Vader
Ruth
Posts: 8437
Joined: August 2012
Allstar wrote: ↑
August 14th, 2019, 12:41 pm
 You nailed it, great post.
I love how pathetic he makes the Manson family at the end so much. Imagine just imagine people being offended of QT’s violence against “women” aka the freaking Manson killers. Lmao. I took so much glee in it with no regrets.
Thrilled you and others can finally see this masterpiece!
I read some articles mentioning the controversy over the violence, and I’m not sure if I agree with this narrative. Don’t take agency away from those girls and infantilize them. It’s a complex topic because they indeed were taken advantage of. But they bragged about this shit. I think the legitimate question to ask would be whether it would’ve been more fitting to lash out at Manson himself, instead of his cult members only. But instead of taking the violence down a notch, I probs would’ve doubled down on the absurdity and have Rick (well Cliff’s injured, so maybe phone Bruce Lee for help lmao?) drive to the ranch and torch Manson himself next as that final “fuck you”. But I thought what we got was perfectly fitting because of what Vader just said.

Also idk if this was intentional, but given how misogynistic the cult was, it’s all the more hysterical that Brandy got to Tex’s balls lmao. I’m like hoping this wasn’t a coincidence
Vader182 wrote: ↑
August 14th, 2019, 12:50 pm
 as usual ruth wins

and if you'll let me piggy back on your point...
besides Cliff's "no it was dumber than that" about Tex's name, my favorite trivialization of Manson is the fact Manson, himself, isn't so much as name dropped the entire movie. He's not even important enough in the channels of history to warrant a name. He has been erased.

-Vader
Yup! I did also touch on that in my last rambly post yesterday.
Manson being trivialized in this is totally the point and it’s brilliant. However, that in no way indicates he or the cult as a whole could’ve been cut from the film, along with Sharon Tate (like I’ve seen some suggest). This movie doesn’t happen without either of them. It’s also amazing Sharon Tate actually feels like a human being in this, she escapes from her legacy as this tragic perpetual victim, and instead brings normalcy to this film. But you cut either of them from the film and it makes a whole lot less sense.
User avatar
BlairCo
Posts: 19859
Joined: June 2011
Location: The Ashes of Gotham
Contact:
Contact BlairCo
For about 90 minutes, I was rather perplexed by exactly what Tarantino was trying to do with this movie. It felt like just a collection of scenes cobbled together to make something that resembled a "narrative. But then I began to realise the reason why I felt the movie meandered a lot, and why I realised it ultimately works in the end; in order to understand why Dalton feels so lost as character, you have to feel as rudderless as he does while he weaves his way through the Hollywood scene. It's simply a day in the city of Los Angeles viewed from various different perspectives, each seeking recognition and a reason to be remembered. It's the most introspective we'll possibly ever see from Tarantino. It annoyed me one minute, but charmed me the next, and that's when I know Tarantino has succeeded in his own weird way.
I'm a John G
Posts: 305
Joined: April 2010
Finally seeing this in 70mm at Village East in NYC tomorrow. Anyone seen it there? Any small chance of tenet trailer? I can't remember if the 70mm 2001 had trailers here
Post Reply

Return to “Movies & TV”