***SPOILERS***Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood***SPOILER THREAD***SPOILERS***

[DeeCee]

***

[SLAM!]

So, who else was surprised by the flamethrower at the end? We got the trademark Tarantino zoom-in and everything.

[lilmac]

So, who else was surprised by the flamethrower at the end? We got the trademark Tarantino zoom-in and everything.

I liked the zoom. Also the Manson compound scene.

Favorite to Least

Pulp Fiction
Inglorious Basterds
Kill Bill 1 and 2
Django Unchained
Hateful Eight
Reservoir Dogs
Jackie Brown
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Not counting Death Proof. Need to see it again.

[ban1o]

Brad Pitt was great in thee film but he came off very Mary Sue-ish. 

[Porthos]

LOL at the fake Wikipedia plot description.

 

Wonder if that was a random troll (I think it started on reddit???) or a studio plant.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Porthos

[Porthos]

Also, there's a great piece over on Vox about the film:

 

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/25/8906839/tarantino-once-upon-time-in-hollywood-spoilers-ending-manson

 

Quote

But although Tate is part of the story of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, she isn’t its main or only focus. Instead, Tarantino is telling a story about a whole era, an entire culture. He positions his story at a time when old-school stars like Rick were losing their foothold on the movies as golden-era Hollywood gave way to the rougher, sometimes more daring films of the ’70s. It’s a story of one generation giving way to another, and — like others have in the past — Tarantino plugs the story into the Manson Family, suggesting the summer of ’69 was a turning point.

 

Yet Tarantino twists the tale at the end. You can look at the Tate and LaBianca murders and the paranoia that swept the nation as a tragedy, but Tarantino wants to tell a fairy tale. (Just look at the title of the movie.)

 

So he bathes the whole story in golden light, as if the film were all shot under a friendly sun, and actually changes history at the end. Instead of unsuspecting people murdered in their houses, the would-be murderers get their comeuppance, in cartoonishly violent fashion. And instead of old Hollywood giving way to a newer, grittier era, things go back (at least for now) to the way they were.

 

Quote

And so Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a movie about the unique, piercing pain that comes along with being a star. That’s why Tate’s scenes in the movie theater, in which she watches herself onscreen (in her latest movie, The Wrecking Crew) and grows more delighted as the audience responds positively, are so affecting: Despite being a bona fide star, married to one of Hollywood’s hottest directors, she is still seeking affirmation from a fickle audience that’s distracted by the next shiny object. In 1969, Tate is that shiny object, at least to those who only know her as the gorgeous girl onscreen — but she seems to instinctively know that, like Rick, she won’t be forever.

 

So the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a way of turning an elegy for a bygone era into a fantasy, a fairy tale, a “what if.” What if the old Hollywood was never killed off? What if Sharon Tate had lived, and not been identified almost exclusively in the future by the way she died? What if Rick — whose era in Hollywood history was marked by Westerns, old-school stories with clear good and evil — wasn’t phased out in the face of the forthcoming counterculture, but welcomed into it by younger faces like Tate’s?

 

What if guys like Rick and Cliff managed to fulfill their destiny, as an action star and a stuntman, by actually (if accidentally) staving off one of the most enduring, horrific crimes in Hollywood history? What if that’s what they’d been training for all along?

 

Of course, that’s not what happened. Tarantino knows it. His actors know it. We know it, out in the audience. Without everything that followed, in fact — without the confusion and rebellion that sank deeper into Hollywood filmmaking in the decade that followed — it’s likely Tarantino wouldn’t be Tarantino at all.

 

But what if, for one night anyhow, they’d all lived happily ever after?

 

The thing is, the clue was starting in the face all along in the title.  

 

"Once Upon a Time" means this film is a fairy tale of sorts.   Something that isn't supposed to be historically accurate.  It's something that clicked in my mind suddenly late last night before I had the movie ending officially confirmed today and I really appreciated how the Vox piece looked at it.

 

I can also see why it might be more than a bit controversial, especially as the film radically shifts gears in the end. But I can also see how some folks love it to pieces and I am fascinated to see how it all plays out.

 

 

[ban1o]

I posted this in the main thread but my posts got deleted. I honestly didn't get the Bruce Lee scene. It just seemed insulting for no reason and an unflattering portrayal of a dead icon. I'm side-eying the hell out of Tarantino for that scene. 

[JB33]

27 minutes ago, Porthos said:

Also, there's a great piece over on Vox about the film:

 

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/7/25/8906839/tarantino-once-upon-time-in-hollywood-spoilers-ending-manson

 

 

 

The thing is, the clue was starting in the face all along in the title.  

 

"Once Upon a Time" means this film is a fairy tale of sorts.   Something that isn't supposed to be historically accurate.  It's something that clicked in my mind suddenly late last night before I had the movie ending officially confirmed today and I really appreciated how the Vox piece looked at it.

 

I can also see why it might be more than a bit controversial, especially as the film radically shifts gears in the end. But I can also see how some folks love it to pieces and I am fascinated to see how it all plays out.

 

 

Indeed a very good piece. Nailed it.

[JB33]

18 minutes ago, ban1o said:

I posted this in the main thread but my posts got deleted. I honestly didn't get the Bruce Lee scene. It just seemed insulting for no reason and an unflattering portrayal of a dead icon. I'm side-eying the hell out of Tarantino for that scene. 

Loved the Bruce Lee scene! Also loved when it turned out to be just a daydream.

[ban1o]

20 minutes ago, JB33 said:

Loved the Bruce Lee scene! Also loved when it turned out to be just a daydream.

Someone else said this in another forum but most people are saying it was a flashback (which was my interpretation)....I don't know where the daydream/fantasy thing comes from. He was fixing the roof and then had a flashback on why he no longer works a stuntsman for Rick and has to be fixing roofs instead. 

 

And as you can tell I did not love the Bruce Lee Scene. It was cringy as hell. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by ban1o

[ban1o]

I thought Leo was really great in the film, especially in his outburst scenes .He really captured an actor with a declining career.  I actually loved the self deprecating scene he had with the little girl. And that girl was a gem honestly. She was a high light. I had to suspend my disbelief when he was shooting scenes and thy were all in one take lmao. I thought his storyline could have been better pieced together, it just didn't flow to me. I loved the Manson family scene, it was so well done but I felt it went on a  little too long but it really makes me want to see Tarantino do horror. Brad Pitt was great but I thought his was a bit too much of a Mary Sue at times. Margot Robbie was...good. I loved the cinema scene but I don't know how Tarantino can describe this as a love letter to Sharon Tate. I get that this wasn't her movie but I felt they could have at least given her  bit more to do. She was suppose to be an actress on the rise in contrast to Dalton's failing carer and I wish we had gotten to see some of Sharon's view of her rising star, or even her relationship with her friends.  I know he was trying to keep her mysterious but I still felt more could have ben don with her. 

 

I thought the final act was good....it was very entertaining but again it was in sort of an unbelievable fairy tale type  way which I guess was the point. Also I did find some of the violence towards the women a bit extreme at times. I loved the very final scene. 

[excel1]

Biggest laughs were the scene where Booth kills his wife and Leo melts down after forgetting his lines.

[Rebeccas]

Sharon feels so peripheral to the story (honestly all the Manson stuff is just random and not very well connected to the main themes/story). The wacky revisionism felt satisfying in Basterds and Django because there was such a direct connection between victim and oppressor. Drunk Leo killing a Manson chick with a flamethrower was funny but not much more, like yay he sure showed those hippies who made noise on his street earlier than night?

[LateReg]

8 hours ago, ban1o said:

Someone else said this in another forum but most people are saying it was a flashback (which was my interpretation)....I don't know where the daydream/fantasy thing comes from. He was fixing the roof and then had a flashback on why he no longer works a stuntsman for Rick and has to be fixing roofs instead. 

 

And as you can tell I did not love the Bruce Lee Scene. It was cringy as hell. 

Why was it cringy? I genuinely don't understand that criticism, which was tossed around by some as early as its premiere.

[ban1o]

22 minutes ago, LateReg said:

Why was it cringy? I genuinely don't understand that criticism, which was tossed around by some as early as its premiere.

Screams white male fantasy power trip to me. (OMG look this random stunt guy easily threw one of the most know martial arts icons into a car! How cool) It was a funny scene but Bruce Lee was made the butt of the joke for no other reason then to paint Cliff as a bad ass when there were many other ways to do that. Wasn't even historically accurate because Bruce Lee was a huge fan of boxing but it had him trashing the sport. Don't understand why he had such a unfavourable depiction besides Tarantino disliking Bruce Lee or him trying to be an edgy contrarian. 

 

Also the exaggerated battle cry came off as racist to me. Funny Tarantino did that to the only non white character in the movie. Even Roman Polanski has a more favourable portrayal in the film. 

 

Tarantino is lucky asians aren't as vocal about racism. If he did that to a black icon like Mohammed Ali or something black people would have vocally trashed the film.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by ban1o

[ban1o]

2 hours ago, Rebeccas said:

Sharon feels so peripheral to the story (honestly all the Manson stuff is just random and not very well connected to the main themes/story). The wacky revisionism felt satisfying in Basterds and Django because there was such a direct connection between victim and oppressor. Drunk Leo killing a Manson chick with a flamethrower was funny but not much more, like yay he sure showed those hippies who made noise on his street earlier than night?

 

I felt the ending was just supposed to be absurd. I don't really feel like it was supposed to be completely earned - it was supposed to be fantastical. I do wonder if viewers who were unfamiliar with the Manson family and the murders would find the whole thing ridiculous though

 

It would have been kinda cool to me if Sharon Tate was able to fight back against the Manson family but tbh there are many ways that could have turned out absolutely ridiculous and also insensitive. 

 

On another note l I almost feel Hippie is a slur with how many times it was said in the film. It's like Tarantino used it to replace his use of the n-word. 

[Rebeccas]

14 minutes ago, ban1o said:

 

I felt the ending was just supposed to be absurd. I don't really feel like it was supposed to be completely earned - it was supposed to be fantastical. I do wonder if viewers who were unfamiliar with the Manson family and the murders would find the whole thing ridiculous though

 

It would have been kinda cool to me if Sharon Tate was able to fight back against the Manson family but tbh there are many ways that could have turned out absolutely ridiculous and also insensitive. 

 

On another note l I almost feel Hippie is a slur with how many times it was said in the film. It's like Tarantino used it to replace his use of the n-word. 

Oh for sure, I think the movie works much better if you go in expecting a low stakes comedy. Unlike his previous films, there's not really much sense of danger or tension in many scenes.

[excel1]

2 hours ago, Rebeccas said:

Sharon feels so peripheral to the story (honestly all the Manson stuff is just random and not very well connected to the main themes/story). The wacky revisionism felt satisfying in Basterds and Django because there was such a direct connection between victim and oppressor. Drunk Leo killing a Manson chick with a flamethrower was funny but not much more, like yay he sure showed those hippies who made noise on his street earlier than night?

Sharon's only purpose is flaunting hot stardom in the face of Rick. The Manson stuff was useless

 

When it was first announced that QT was doing something on the Manson murders, I definitely expected that to play a bigger role in the film. The story isn't cohesive at all, even for a QT film, and what was the point of the 6 month tour to Italy?

[Rebeccas]

17 minutes ago, excel1 said:

Sharon's only purpose is flaunting hot stardom in the face of Rick. The Manson stuff was useless

 

When it was first announced that QT was doing something on the Manson murders, I definitely expected that to play a bigger role in the film. The story isn't cohesive at all, even for a QT film, and what was the point of the 6 month tour to Italy?

I could see a bunch of ideas about the two storylines being connected (something about Hollywood during a period of change and things not making sense anymore for an older actor from a different era) but I don't think the film did enough to tie them together. I was actually hoping we'd get a long winded Tarantino monologue that thematically justifies why this drunk doofus actor's story has to involve the Manson murders but.. nope lol.

[LateReg]

I think both parts of the story in this basically plotless movie are wonderfully intertwined on an atmospheric level, which is where this movie lives and breathes. The Mansons were incorporated from the second scene in the film, and frequently revisited throughout, which helps. But this movie is about the times, and the changing of times, and the confusion of the times, and perhaps a loss of innocence, and all of that is tied together. To me, saying that the Mansons don't belong in the movie is like saying that they don't belong in real life. They don't, and yet there they are, influenced by and influencing the times. It all feels right to me, and there's a lot to read into, and I'm happy he left it loose and the meaning of it all understated.

 

As far as Bruce Lee, I simply don't see the things described here as a bad thing. I don't think in these terms, but even if it is a white male fantasy, that's that character's white male fantasy. The film doesn't need to pass judgment on that character for fantasizing (if it's a daydream, as it felt to me, or a hazy memory, as it also felt) or for actually fighting Lee in that fashion (if it is a flashback). Maybe it's just something that happened. Maybe the Pitt character is simply a macho man who felt underappreciated who wanted to take down somebody who everybody admired in order to prove himself. Or, maybe the character actually is racist in some way. Maybe that is the point, and we see it through his eyes, and it just is what it is.