Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

[BetterButter]

Quote

A faded TV actor and his stunt double strive to achieve fame and success in the film industry during the final years of Hollywood's Golden Age in 1969 Los Angeles.

[Spartan Girl]

I'm...intrigued.

[Jediknight]

This has to be an alternate history movie where Tate kills Manson.  Or a revenge movie where Pitt, Leo, and resurrected Bruce Lee kill Manson.  Because this teaser and tone of what we see gives no indication of the Tate murders.

[Stenbeck]

I have no idea what to expect.

I'm reticent to watch it, since Sharon Tate's murder is so, so sad. 

The alternate history angle is intriguing. 

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Jediknight said:

This has to be an alternate history movie where Tate kills Manson. 

I’m hoping this happens. I’d love to have a montage with all the Manson victims killing their killers. Go full Basterds on their asses. 

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, Jediknight said:

resurrected Bruce Lee

This. That might be the best Bruce Lee impression ever.

[tennisgurl]

Its kind of wild to me that Tarantino has only made nine movies. For a guy who has had such an impact on film, thats a pretty small filmography all things considered. 

I love 60s era Hollywood, so I am ready for this.

[VCRTracking]

11 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

This. That might be the best Bruce Lee impression ever.

Mike Moh is the actor and he's been getting a lot of raves just from the little bit shown. He tweeted:

[Macbeth]

I saw an interview of Timothy Olyphant on Conan. He's in the film and he is very excited about it.  

He talked about meeting Brad Pitt at the first read.  Brad roared up on his motorcycle while Tim buzzed in with his electric car.  So according to Tim that's why Brad is the big movie star while he wasn't. 

For my money - Tim played a couple of the greatest characters on film - Seth Bullock and Raylan Givens.  Raylan, especially, beats any character Brad has ever played. 

So hold your head up high Tim. You have nothing to be ashamed about. 

[Kel Varnsen]

On 3/20/2019 at 9:25 PM, tennisgurl said:

Its kind of wild to me that Tarantino has only made nine movies. For a guy who has had such an impact on film, thats a pretty small filmography all things considered. 

It doesn't like many considering that Reservoir Dogs came out in 1992. Speilberg has directed 19 movies in that time period, although David Fincher has only directed 10. I am also curios how Tarantino  gets to 9. Does he not count Grindhouse, because it was an a partnership thing or does he count Kill Bill as one movie? 

[Cheezwiz]

When I first heard about this, I thought it was a bad, bad, idea. Just terrible.

I pretty much loathe Quentin Tarantino at this point. I feel like he started out with a bang, with "Reservoir Dogs" & "Pulp Fiction" which were supremely entertaining at the time, and that his movies have devolved and gotten worse ever since. The one exception being "Jackie Brown" which explored more nuanced adult themes.

I've grown to hate his smirky self-congratulatory aura, and his constant adolescent fixation on gory violence. I absolutely hated, HATED "The Hateful Eight" - got so tired of seeing Jennifer Jason Leigh being used as a punching bag for the entire movie. In short, he seems like a self-satisfied creep, and it's turned me off of all of his films. 

But then I saw the trailer for this and was completely captivated. As much as I dislike Tarantino, he sure knows how to pull good vintage tunes for his soundtracks. I've had that Los Bravos song on repeat since I first saw the trailer. The actor playing Bruce Lee just kills it in that brief snippet, and it looks like Tarantino's done a great job at recapturing what the 60's Sunset Strip probably looked like. I have no idea what course the movie will take, but I'll try to see it without reading advance reviews. My only quibble so far is that I wish they had looked for an unknown to play Sharon Tate. I like Margot Robbie, but as beautiful as she is, she looks nothing like Sharon, who was just otherworldly in terms of gorgeousness.

I'm fascinated by that whole era, and Hollywood lore in general, so I'm hoping this might actually be decent.

[JBC344]

On ‎3‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 5:59 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

It doesn't like many considering that Reservoir Dogs came out in 1992. Speilberg has directed 19 movies in that time period, although David Fincher has only directed 10. I am also curios how Tarantino  gets to 9. Does he not count Grindhouse, because it was an a partnership thing or does he count Kill Bill as one movie? 

He counts the Kill Bill movies as one.

[Kel Varnsen]

4 hours ago, JBC344 said:

He counts the Kill Bill movies as one.

Which makes me wonder if we will ever see a megacut 3+ hour release of Kill Bill as one movie on DVD.

[BetterButter]

[Jediknight]

Was Bruce Lee training Sharon Tate?

We are getting an alternate history, where Sharon fucks up the Manson Family.

Neil Diamond is always a win.

[Shannon L.]

It looks good, but I'm going to have to be slightly spoiled before I go see it.  If there's all that comedy leading up to the brutal murders, I don't think I can deal with it.  But, if it's like @Jediknight says and it's an alternative reality, then maybe.  But, even that seems a bit disrespectful. 

[Robert Lynch]

That's why Bruce Lee is king. He is immortalized in both video games and movies forever. You don't mess with the legend that is legendary. He is Street Fighter before Street Fighter. Bruce Lee forever! Waaaaaaaaa...!

[tennisgurl]

I really want this to be an alternate history where Sharon Tate beats the shit out of the Manson Family after being trained by Bruce Lee. I mean, Quentin Tarantino is so stranger to changing history to give assholes a more satisfying death than what they got in real life, so its not out of the realm of possibility. 

I love 60s era Hollywood, and Bruce Lee, so I am all about this. 

[SimoneS]

I used to be a huge Tarantino fan, but now he just makes my skin crawl.

[Cheezwiz]

1 hour ago, SimoneS said:

I used to be a huge Tarantino fan, but now he just makes my skin crawl.

I feel exactly the same. I find both him and his films pretty repugnant now.

However, I may have to break my "no more Tarantino" oath to see this one - I'm fascinated by that time period, and it's actually garnering good reviews at Cannes.

[VCRTracking]

On 5/21/2019 at 9:44 AM, Jediknight said:

Was Bruce Lee training Sharon Tate?

We are getting an alternate history, where Sharon fucks up the Manson Family.

Neil Diamond is always a win. 

For her movie "The Wrecking Crew" that she was watching in the trailer:

[Yokosmom]

Much as it would be satisfying for Sharon & friends (and Brad and Leo) to kick the Manson family's butt, I doubt that is the way the film will go.  From the reviews, it sounds like it isn't an alternate history (though they all try very hard to avoid spoilers, so who knows). Manson is supposedly only in the film for about 30 seconds.  The reviews are very good and most say that it is a sort of love letter to the Hollywood of that time period.  Praise for both Pitt and DiCaprio.  

Tarantino has apparently met with Sharon Tate's sister several times to assure her that it won't be too exploitative.  Apparently, the studio wanted the film to open on the anniversary of the Tate murders, but thankfully, that has been changed.

I've been hit and miss on his films.  Skipped Inglorious Bastards but broke down and saw Hateful Eight.  Definitely want to see this one.

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, Yokosmom said:

Skipped Inglorious Bastards but broke down and saw Hateful Eight.

Yeah, that wasn't the right way to do that.

[VCRTracking]

New cool theatrical poster:

[Cheezwiz]

This retro-style poster is much better than the original one they released! (which was just a boring shot Brad & Leo posed in front of a car).

[SeanC]

The movie is undeniably self-indulgent in its running time, which keeps it from being as good as it could be, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it all the way through. The depiction of the late 1960s TV industry is interesting. His foot fetish, though, has reached the point of being too obtrusive for his own good.

The very end (beyond the climactic fight, which was awesome) hit a really nice wistful note, and I think it serves as a bit of authorial reflection on his own previous narratives about righting historical wrongs.  Inglourious Basterds was pretty unambiguously triumphant in how it sent the audience off, here it's a lot more knowingly commenting that this is what we all wish happened as opposed to what really did happen.

The scenes with DiCaprio and the studious child actress (er, actor, per her wishes) were stealth highlights of the movie.

[JessePinkman]

God was this movie ever boring. 2 hours and 41 minutes, felt more like 8.

That's my biggest complaint, the other was hiring Margot Robbie and giving her nothing to do. They could have cast any beautiful blonde and gotten the same performance because the only requirement was to smile, dance and be pretty. I guess Sharon Tate was the personification of the end of the age of innocence in Hollywood? But isn't that what she's been for the last 50 years? I wanted her to have some characterization beyond Very Pretty and Happy.

Who was this woman beyond what she represents to Quentin Tarantino? I found a lot of it frankly insulting to her memory because it came across like he wanted to use his author's pen to save her and thereby somehow save a Hollywood he never got to experience. This didn't feel like a love letter to Hollywood at all to me as I've seen people claim, it felt like the film equivalent of "Ugh I was born in the wrong decade". It was so...masturbatory.

Anyway, it was well shot and DiCaprio and Pitt were great with what they had to work with.

Edited July 26, 2019 by JessePinkman

[Shannon L.]

I'm sorry if one of the previous posts addressed this, but I'm not reading them before I see the movie because I don't want to be spoiled.

Tarantino is known for the violence in his films.  I can handle it for the most part, but have been getting tired of it, which is why I haven't seen all of his movies.  This one, though, I'd like to see.  Just so I can be ready for it, how does the violence measure up to his previous films?  More/ less/about the same?

[JessePinkman]

20 minutes ago, Shannon L. said:

Tarantino is known for the violence in his films.  I can handle it for the most part, but have been getting tired of it, which is why I haven't seen all of his movies.  This one, though, I'd like to see.  Just so I can be ready for it, how does the violence measure up to his previous films?  More/ less/about the same?

Just as violent but much less. About 10-15 minutes of the whole film. And it's mostly comical.

[Shannon L.]

2 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

Just as violent but much less. About 10-15 minutes of the whole film. And it's mostly comical.

Thanks! 

[Steph J]

6 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

God was this movie ever boring. 2 hours and 41 minutes, felt more like 8.

I'll see your boring and add a pointless.  I'm a huge Tarantino fan but I just didn't connect with this at all.  I have no idea what, if anything, Tarantino is trying to express with this story and so many scenes just felt so... lifeless.

5 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

Just as violent but much less. About 10-15 minutes of the whole film. And it's mostly comical.

Have to disagree (I'm assuming by "comical" you mean funny, rather than cartoonish in its excess; my apologies if I've got that wrong). Seeing 

Spoiler

a guy who already killed his wife just because she's a naggy bitch (for lack of a better word - that's how the film characterizes her) go on to kill one of the Manson women by smashing her head into seemingly every surface in the room, and then seeing his buddy torch one of the other ones with a flame thrower

just felt excessively brutal - although no more so than what the historical Manson family actually did to their victims (and maybe that's the point, idk).

[Wouldofshouldof]

2 hours ago, Steph J said:

7 hours ago, JessePinkman said:

Just as violent but much less. About 10-15 minutes of the whole film. And it's mostly comical.

Have to disagree (I'm assuming by "comical" you mean funny, rather than cartoonish in its excess; my apologies if I've got that wrong)

The audience I saw it with was definitely chuckling in a "That's Tarantino for you" kind of way.

[Enigma X]

I am a huge Tarantino, Pitt, and DiCaprio fan but I was not a fan of this. I think both actors did the best they could with the material they were given but this just fell flat in the story department for me. For some reason the narrator seemed very out of place and came out of nowhere.

Since Pitt and DiCaprio are two of my favorite actors, I hope they team up for something better in the future.

[Robert Lynch]

I just brought tickets for Tuesday. I hope I don't regret it.

[magdalene]

The movie was too long but the two leads are fantastic.  The title should tell you that this is a fairy tale.  

Spoiler

Tarantino goes down the alternate history route again. If only  we had gotten the fairy tale with Sharon Tate in real life.  

Robbie was actually not enough in the movie for me but she was so charming.

I liked what Tarantino did with the Manson women. He gave them the brutal death they so richly deserved.  And I liked that Manson himself is basically a non-entity in the film.  That fucker thought he was all that to the end and he would have hated how Tarantino ignored him.

[Cheezwiz]

I just saw it this evening, and, well, I didn't hate it as much as his other films. I'll try to comment without spoilerizing too much.

It definitely needed editing down. I think a lot of younger viewers might find it especially tedious if they're not familiar with film and TV from that era. I hadn't quite made my debut on planet earth yet in '69, but I grew up watching reruns of the type of stuff DiCaprio's character stars in, so I found the faux recreations of shows from that period amusing and entertaining. There's a an extended sequence of him acting in a Western TV show that I think ran on for much too long - but he had some terrific scenes with a little girl actress who helps boost his sagging confidence (I could have watched a whole movie about those two characters together).

Beautiful job of recreating that era in Los Angeles - Sunset Strip, famous restaurants, theatres, beautiful cars, - that stuff I loved. There is a lot of  comedic behind-the-scenes stuff going on, and some prominent "spot the famous celebrity" scenes which tickled me - there are several famous folk featured for whom they found absolute dead ringers. Tons of scenes of highway driving which the film will likely get dinged for, but I actually loved them, because that's where the wicked soundtrack kicks in.

For the stuff I didn't care for: I would have liked a bit more insight about Brad Pitt's character - there is something left a bit ambiguous in his past, which I found really distasteful, and ruined what otherwise would have been a fairly sympathetic character for me. I wanted to know why he hung in with Leo's character, who it turns out, is oblivious to his circumstances. We spend most of the time with Leo, who is a bumbling self-absorbed goofball. So, probably a pretty accurate depiction of most actors.

This being a Tarantino film, the treatment of women is, unsurprisingly, totally appalling and cringe inducing, (even if they are supposed to be villainous).  This was my biggest issue. For those wondering, there is extreme gory violence, but it is blessedly brief. You've heard of Chekhov's gun? This film has a version of that, only it has four legs and a wagging tail.

Margot Robbie was lovely. She doesn't look like Sharon, and isn't in the film a whole lot, but she played her brief scenes with radiance and sweetness, which made me feel  very sad at the film's conclusion. 

I'd say I liked a good 75%  of the film, but the usual over-the-top violence marred what would have otherwise been a nostalgic valentine to a vanished era. I know, I know, it's Tarantino, but I was hoping for something a bit different this time.

[Proclone]

 

 

7

 Advanced issues found

▲

 

 

1

7 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

It definitely needed editing down. I think a lot of younger viewers might find it especially tedious if they're not familiar with film and TV from that era. I hadn't quite made my debut on planet earth yet in '69, but I grew up watching reruns of the type of stuff DiCaprio's character stars in, so I found the faux recreations of shows from that period amusing and entertaining. There's a an extended sequence of him acting in a Western TV show that I think ran on for much too long - but he had some terrific scenes with a little girl actress who helps boost his sagging confidence (I could have watched a whole movie about those two characters together).

For the stuff I didn't care for: I would have liked a bit more insight about Brad Pitt's character - there is something left a bit ambiguous in his past, which I found really distasteful, and ruined what otherwise would have been a fairly sympathetic character for me. I wanted to know why he hung in with Leo's character, who it turns out, is oblivious to his circumstances. We spend most of the time with Leo, who is a bumbling self-absorbed goofball. So, probably a pretty accurate depiction of most actors.

Overall I enjoyed it as well, though I do agree that it needed to be edited down quite a bit.  I didn't mind DiCaprio's scenes that much, I think that part of the point of their length was to show that Rick actually was a pretty good actor, despite his own self-doubt.  But there were other sequences that just went on too long.  Pitt driving around for example.  I get that it had a certain point (he keeps running into one of the Manson girls while driving), but the individual sequences could have been trimmed down themselves.  It's cool to see the LA of the 1960s, but at a certain point, you're just watching a guy drive around.  Also, I really didn't need Sharon Tate to spend that much time watching herself on screen.  I think the idea of that sequence was cute and fun, but at a certain point, it felt like that section was there to serve Tarantino's apparent foot fetish (she has her bare feet sitting on the back of the seat through most of it), more than anything else.  I felt like a lot of the movie was like, scenes that should have been cut even just a few seconds sooner and the pacing suffers for it.  In a weird way, it still felt like a ruff edit of the movie.

I also didn't like that they didn't definitively answer what had happened in Pitt's character's past.  He seemed to have a pretty firm moral compass even if he wasn't opposed to violence so the claims against him didn't really fit with the character.  I was waiting for an explanation of whether they really were true.  All we do get is a flashback (and I think it might have been a flashback within a flashback) that implies he did do it...and plays it for laughs.  I get it's a Tarantino movie and most of the characters are going to be grey, but it seems like such an odd choice, especially in this day and age.  This might be set in 1969, but Tarantino would have to know how that would come across to 2019 audiences.  Though the audience I was with did laugh...sadly.

I really would have liked to have seen more of Robbie as Tate as well.  I think it would have been interesting to show her relationship with Polanski.  And to show the friction between the two of them as apparently Tate wanted a more conventional marriage and life in general and Polanski didn't.  Considering how part of the movie sort of puts characters like Pitt's Cliff and to a lesser extent DiCaprio's Rick in opposition to the "hippies." I think that would have worked as another example of the culture clashes that were happening.  I'm not sure the actor playing Polanski even has lines, now that I think of it.

I totally get why some people won't like this film...I did overall enjoy it.  That being said, it's not a film that I'll probably rewatch, at least not anytime soon.  I think a certain portion of the experience is simply waiting to see what Tarantino is going to with the end, and after that, it's a film about down on his luck actor and his buddy, that doesn't have much of a plot, and occasional cutaways to a pretty blonde.  Which isn't to say you shouldn't see it, I just don't think it's something that lends itself to a rewatch.

[Cheezwiz]

I really wanted answers to Pitt's character as well. The fact that something was dangled in front of the audience and then never addressed completely frustrated me, especially because the rumours about him did not fit with his behaviour onscreen. I kept expecting some sort of twist on his mysterious past.

Great points above about straights vs. hippies, and the the real relationship between Tate & Polanski (which was apparently not always a happy one). Sorry, I wish I could quote you directly @Proclone, but for some reason I'm not able to copy sections of your post. It sounds like we wanted to see the same things in the film.

Basically although it's overlong and rambling, I was quite happy to sit back for the ride and enjoyed it until the final 15 minutes or so when it went full Tarantino. So far opinions on this film seem pretty polarized, but I'm actually on the fence. 

Oh, and fun fact: I thought "Lancer" the TV Western that DiCaprio's character guest stars on was a fictional show, but it was actually real. 

[Proclone]

14 minutes ago, Cheezwiz said:

I really wanted answers to Pitt's character as well. The fact that something was dangled in front of the audience and then never addressed completely frustrated me, especially because the rumours about him did not fit with his behaviour onscreen. I kept expecting some sort of twist on his mysterious past.

Great points above about straights vs. hippies, and the the real relationship between Tate & Polanski (which was apparently not always a happy one). Sorry, I wish I could quote you directly @Proclone, but for some reason I'm not able to copy sections of your post. It sounds like we wanted to see the same things in the film.

Basically although it's overlong and rambling, I was quite happy to sit back for the ride and enjoyed it until the final 15 minutes or so when it went full Tarantino. So far opinions on this film seem pretty polarized, but I'm actually on the fence. 

Oh, and fun fact: I thought "Lancer" the TV Western that DiCaprio's character guest stars on was a fictional show, but it was actually real. 

Yeah, I'm not sure what's wrong with my earlier post either.  It won't let me edit it to fix the formatting issue either...

Anyway, I'm surprised they didn't touch on the issues in Tate and Polanski's marriage...especial since they had Steve McQueen comment that Jay Seabring was hanging around in part because he knew Polanski would screw up.  I'm also not sure how you don't have them in the movie and not use, "We have a good arrangement.  Roman lies to me and I pretend to believe him."  Which apparently Tate said to a friend...I mean it is such a movie line.

And I really was disappointed that they didn't reveal what really happened with Pitt's character.  I thought there was going to be some sort of reveal that tied to the plot in some way...but it had very little impact on the story or even the characters.  There could have been dozen of other more straight forward reasons why Cliff had problems getting work as a stunt man, that would have fit with the characters better.  Hell, they showed one with his fight with Bruce Lee.  Make that a recurring problem with him getting into fights with stars who have big mouths and you not only have a reason he can't get work, but you have an amusing gag that fits with the character.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Proclone

[Cheezwiz]

57 minutes ago, Proclone said:

Anyway, I'm surprised they didn't touch on the issues in Tate and Polanski's marriage...especial since they had Steve McQueen comment that Jay Seabring was hanging around in part because he knew Polanski would screw up.  I'm also not sure how you don't have them in the movie and not use, "We have a good arrangement.  Roman lies to me and I pretend to believe him."  Which apparently Tate said to a friend...I mean it is such a movie line.

Yes, I was really wondering if that quote of Sharon's was going to turn up in the film, as it is pretty well publicized, and is a great line. Makes me all the sadder for the real Sharon Tate.

1 hour ago, Proclone said:

And I really was disappointed that they didn't reveal what really happened with Pitt's character.  I thought there was going to be some sort of reveal that tied to the plot in some way...but it had very little impact on the story or even the characters.  There could have been dozen of other more straight forward reasons why Cliff had problems getting work as a stunt man, that would have fit with the characters better.  Hell, they showed one with his fight with Bruce Lee.  Make that a recurring problem with him getting into fights with stars who have big mouths and you not only have a reason he can't get work, but you have an amusing gag that fits with the character.

And YES to all of this!! This would have been a much better and funnier approach since Pitt's character is so laid back and laconic in other environments.

This is the thing that frustrates me about Tarantino, as he often has the initial SEEDS of something interesting  his movies, but he veers away reverts to his usual tiresome habits. I remember watching From Dusk 'Til Dawn, and being quite gripped by the first half of the movie -  the dynamics of innocent family menaced by bad people, and what happens when ALL of them are menaced by something much worse. But then it just turned into a big boring gore-fest. And that  pretty much sums up my opinion of all of his films (Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown excepted). Although it was shaggy and meandering, I'd put this one up as one of his better attempts.

[Spartan Girl]

I wish I never knew Tarantino has a foot fetish. So many bare feet. Gross.

It was slow but the last 30 minutes was worth it. I know it was pure revenge fantasy but I LOVED the Mansons getting what they deserved. Good girl, Brandy! Such an adorable pit bull (thank God she survived). Was I the only one that was scared Cliff was over feeding her?

LOL at drunk Rick singing along to "Snoopy and the Red Baron."

Dont know if I liked Cliff and Rick that much but I loved their friendship.

[Enigma X]

I agree that it would have helped to know the backstory on Cliff's wife death. I like the characters individually but really liked their friendship. I get why Rick depended on Cliff, but, as noted, I don't neccessarily understand Cliff's motivation enough. Again, the actors did well with the material, but I just felt there was more to all of Cliff's story that even a short conversation or line would have given the audience a better understanding.

[lurkerbee]

Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham were the inspiration for Rick"s and Cliff's relationship.

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

I wish I never knew Tarantino has a foot fetish. So many bare feet. Gross.

To use the appropriate lexicon of the period, at this point in his career, Quentin's "letting his freak flag fly."

I think it's fairly obvious that that this film has an intended audience of one: Quentin Tarantino. The fact that other people are paying money to watch it is gravy. But he made this movie for himself. I kind of respect that use of his power. (It's better than some have done with theirs, including Quentin himself.) Personally, I rank it eighth of his nine. There were some good moments, but I'm just not that fascinated by the movie business.

ETA: I just confirmed through IMDB that the Mansonite who abandoned Tex Watson and crew was Maya Hawke. (Robin in Stranger Things) I thought that was her.

Edited July 27, 2019 by AimingforYoko

[Luckylyn]

I feel like I need to watch it again to get a clearer idea of how I feel about it.  My initial thoughts are that I don’t hate it but don’t love it either.  I feel like there’s the potential for it to be something really good, but it just doesn’t get there.  There are major pacing issues, and the movie desperately needed more editing.  I felt like there were too many scenes that went on too long and some scenes were totally unnecessary.  For example The Great Escape clip just felt like Tarantino showing off rather than really adding anything to the narrative.  This is going to sound kinda random but I was reminded of commentary of the Princess Diaries 2.   The reviewer talked about how scenes in the movie should have some sort of narrative value and too many scenes felt not only unnecessary but a distraction rather than enhancement of the movie.  So that’s how I feel about this movie.  

The western scenes went on way too long.  I felt like the point was to show that Leo really had acting talent and that he’s his own worst enemy.  Way too much time was taken to make that point.  Those scenes could have easily been trimmed down.

I thought Brad Pitt driving Leo’s car when he went with Pussy to meet the hippies was going to have meaning to the plot.  I assumed that on their way to Sharon Tate’s house to kill her and her guests they would spot Leo’s car since he’s Sharon’s neighbor and then switch targets to get revenge on Brad Pitt.  Then it turns out that Brad’s trip to the old movie lot had zero impact over what happens later.  It’s only after they are already in the house intent on killing that the hippies and Brad have any recognition of each other.   So that whole sequence at the old  movie lot ultimately doesn’t matter to the narrative, and it easily could have.  I don’t hate the sequence by itself because it was quite tense in a good way but I just wish it mattered more to the story.

Also I hate that 2/3 into the movie all of a sudden we have Kurt Russell as the narrator.  It felt so random.   If a movie is going to have a narrator then that needs to be established earlier unless the director can find a creative reason for the narrator to suddenly pop up later like make the narration about entertainment show covering Leo’s Italian gambit to revive his career.    

There was good humor in this and I some genuine tension.  Unfortunately it is was also bloated, and I think the script needed some tweaking.  

[Enigma X]

59 minutes ago, Luckylyn said:

Also I hate that 2/3 into the movie all of a sudden we have Kurt Russell as the narrator.  It felt so random.   If a movie is going to have a narrator then that needs to be established earlier unless the director can find a creative reason for the narrator to suddenly pop up later like make the narration about entertainment show covering Leo’s Italian gambit to revive his career.      

This was jarring to me.

[cmahorror]

20 hours ago, Cheezwiz said:

You've heard of Chekhov's gun? This film has a version of that, only it has four legs and a wagging tail.

Ha! I actually saw the footage with the flamethrower and him talking about how he worked so hard to learn how to use it and said it's Chekhov's flamethrower - I knew that sucker was coming back in the last act.

I think that the title gives away the fact that it is an alternate ending for Sharon Tate. This is a fairy tale in the tradition of the Brothers Grimm. Yes, there is a princess (Sharon) and she will get her happy ending but it will take blood spilled by the princes (Cliff and Rick) before she gets it.

While it may have been unnecessary, I loved the scenes of Sharon hiding in the audience to watch her movie with them. The smile on her face as they laughed in all the right places was absolutely gorgeous.

It was driving me crazy who the little girl was in the Western so I came home and looked it up - it's Anna-Kat from American Housewife! Such a different role for her and she and Leonardo DiCaprio had some great scenes together.

All in all, especially for someone who does not normally care for either Leo or Brad, I enjoyed the film more than I thought I would. Is it another Pulp Fiction, not even close, but it was still not a bad way to spend an afternoon.

[Silver Raven]

I was irritated that Steven Parent wasn't in this movie, I thought it was disrespectful to his memory. 

I kept feeling like Pitt's character had a crush on Rick.  It would explain why he seemed to put up with everything Rick had him do, with no apparent resentment.

[Laurie4H]

I enjoyed it.  The pacing was off.  Like they could have cut some scenes and show more of the Italian movies and his wife etc.   But I love the genre and the Manson story.   If you don’t know anything about the Manson murders a lot of the movie won’t make sense.  Especially the ending.  If you don’t know who Sharon Tate is or her friends are and what happens to them you wouldn’t understand there purpose of those scenes in movie.  

[kittykat]

Seems like I'm on the minority but I loved this.  It definitely runs long but pacing wise it's very reminiscent of Jackie Brown and Inglorious Basterds which have similar runtimes.  Plus I'm a sucker for a Tarantinofied History Revision.  

I really enjoyed the slice of life along for the ride feel and didn't mind certain scenes dragging out, it wasn't broken down by chapter as most his films are but I liked that.  I liked Cliff's wild ride with the Manson girls, Sharon's trip to the theater and Rick's struggle on set and showing he could be a great actor when he's not being his worst enemy.  I thought each second act story with these characters really delved into each of their cores.  I'm still processing it but I thought the actors all pulled in great work.  DiCaprio was good but Pitt was great.  Ive never been a Pitt superfangurl but this may be one of his best roles.