Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

[Cheezwiz]

On 3/4/2020 at 9:24 AM, lasu said:

His abs when he was on the roof...dear god, that is a gorgeous man.  Even my male companion let out a soft "Jesus" when Brad took his shirt off.  I'm thrilled for him he took the statue.

Although I was entertained by him in this movie, for me, his performance wasn't anything special. I think DiCaprio gave by far the best performance of the two (and I'm not particularly a fan of either). DiCaprio managed be hilariously self-involved yet sympathetic. I think any handsome slightly beat-up looking but still fit middle-aged actor could have played Brad's part.

I admit, the roof-top scene made my jaw drop, but basically Brad got an Oscar simply for taking off his shirt.

[cpcathy]

Perhaps, but mostly he got the Oscar for a charismatic performance, as well as being rewarded for many good roles over the years. It was a career Oscar, just like DiCaprio's was a couple of years ago.

[lasu]

Also, to be fair, I didn't feel like 2020 gave us a particularly strong set of Supporting Actor nods.  I hated Tom Hanks as Mr. Rogers, I hated the CGI too much to be able to deal with Joe Pesci or Al Pacino, and I didn't actually see Two Popes, but I'm fine with Hopkins missing an award or two.  So, at the end of the day, I'm glad Brad Pitt took his shirt off, and I'm glad he won the award, lol.

[StatisticalOutlier]

On 3/4/2020 at 10:24 AM, lasu said:

I saw this twice in the theater (at the Alamo Drafthouse, which I only mention because someone at the beginning of the thread said thank god they didn't have to go see this at the AD, and I wondered why). 

That could have been me.  I never miss an opportunity to bitch about the Alamo Drafthouse, with their waiters running around all hunched over as if that makes them somehow invisible and the ruckus that happens when they bring the checks before the movie ends. 

[lasu]

5 hours ago, StatisticalOutlier said:

That could have been me.  I never miss an opportunity to bitch about the Alamo Drafthouse, with their waiters running around all hunched over as if that makes them somehow invisible and the ruckus that happens when they bring the checks before the movie ends. 

I thought about that later, and I can understand it.  I have a season pass though, so it's the only theater I go to.  The waiters don't bother me unless it's subtitled, but I'll admit, I don't think I'm going to see the Quiet Place sequel there though, lol.

[Kel Varnsen]

I finally got around to watching this last night and really enjoyed it. I started late and was only planning on watching half of it but I was so into it that I ended up staying up past midnight to watch the whole thing. And I totally should have known that the movie would have a relatively happy ending since stories that start with Once upon a time usually end with people living happily ever after.

Brad and Leo were both great. Although I kind of wish Leo at the start of the movie looked a bit more like Leo after he came back from Italy. Since he was supposed to be kind of washed up with his previous hit show being from the 50s. Yet he still looked like Leonardo DiCaprio so I found it hard to buy that he couldn't maintain a career. Then again Timothy Olyphant looked younger in this then in any episode of Deadwood.

[Ohwell]

I saw this last night, too, and while quite long, I really enjoyed it. 

Brad on the roof........👀

[rmontro]

Made a point to watch this since we're getting free Showtime this week.  I have to say this is the best movie I've seen in awhile.  The ending was so satisfying, especially that flamethrower scene.  That's the word that fits best for me - satisfying.

I was kind of hoping something like that was going to happen, and I was glad it did, because I really had no interest in watching the alternative.

[AuntiePam]

22 hours ago, rmontro said:

I was kind of hoping something like that was going to happen, and I was glad it did, because I really had no interest in watching the alternative.

Me neither.  I didn't for a minute think that we'd see it but I couldn't figure what QT would do to avoid it. 

I avoided reading about the movie until today -- when I finally saw it (also courtesy of free Showtime), so everything was a surprise.  All I'd seen were the shots from the various award shows.  I didn't know what the movie was about, which I'm thinking is the best way to go into any movie -- no expectations.

Little Julia Butters was excellent.  I'll be rewatching for her, mostly.

[xls]

On 4/4/2020 at 1:21 AM, rmontro said:

Made a point to watch this since we're getting free Showtime this week.  I have to say this is the best movie I've seen in awhile.  The ending was so satisfying, especially that flamethrower scene.  That's the word that fits best for me - satisfying.

I was kind of hoping something like that was going to happen, and I was glad it did, because I really had no interest in watching the alternative.

Me too! If only...

I was yes! yes! 

[NDW5332]

I finally got around to watching this and I thought it was just...OK...good but not great.

I loved most everything about this: the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the soundtrack, the set decoration, the writing, etc...  But somehow, I feel the final picture doesn't equal the sum of its parts.  It reminds me of the Mary Poppins problem - it's about 20 minutes too long - but what 20 minutes do you cut out?

I get the feel that Rick Dalton is exactly the actor that Tarantino would hire to fill a supporting role in one of his movies (like Robert Forster, Lawrence Tierney, David Carradine, etc...) in the 1990's.

Now, here's where I get into my head cannon: 

Spoiler

What if the ending, which diverged from real life, was all Cliff Booth's acid trip from the laced cigarette he smoked?

 

[cleo]

I just wqtched this on a flight. I knew nothing about it other than vaguely remembering some complaints about Robbie not having lines 

I enjoyed it, possibly bc I had a lot of time to kill lol. I think it was effective- the approach with Robbie. She doesn't need to say much, who she is and what happened to her looms large over her scenes. It was bittersweet to watch her and impossible not to think about the real Tate 

I had no desire to see the actual history so I was glad for the alternate reality.

Pitt is still hot but I'm surprised he got all the accolades, I thought Leo's work was better.

Agree with everyone on the sour note over the wife's possible murder 

Great soundtrack.

[Sarah 103]

On 6/22/2020 at 4:02 PM, NDW5332 said:

it's about 20 minutes too long - but what 20 minutes do you cut out?

I have an idea that would solve the problem. You do not cut a single scence. You cut a few minutes here and there, especially the scenes of them walking or looking around. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

I think Quentin's tempo has slowed down a bit as he's grown older, and essentially he now makes limited series and smushes them into very long feature films. I was surprised by how much better The Hateful Eight (which I had found numbing as a 168-minute single serving) worked in the Netflix four-episode version. My suspicion is that Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood might be a similar case, if he follows through on recutting the 4 hours and 20 minutes he shot. He had to make a lot of choices to get it ready for the Cannes premiere. Allegedly, there was one cut scene in which Julia Butters was so good that she might have received an Oscar nomination. 

But I did love the film as released last summer. It was one of my three favorites of 2019, along with Parasite and the Pedro Almodóvar movie Pain and Glory. 

[BetterButter]

 

[Sarah 103]

I thought this book might interest people who are fans of the movie.

https://decider.com/2021/07/03/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-book/

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Just saw it again for the first time since its first run.

The most surprising thing to me was how I completely missed Dalton not mentioning, or even hinting at, Cliff's heroism.  Every single detail he mentioned to Sebring, and then Tate, was about his experience.  He needed to be in that clique/circle really, really, bad.  

Then I thought back to all the scenes he had with Booth and the self-absorbed Dalton was right there for me to see.  Sure, there was some level of caring and concern for Cliff.  There was some very minimal inconvenience he endured in helping Cliff.  

But, in the main, that relationship was alllll about Rick's needs.  This makes me sad.

This is most definitely one of the movies which is light years better on the big screen with theater sound than on a TV.

[shapeshifter]

On 2/5/2022 at 11:06 PM, Lonesome Rhodes said:

Just saw it again for the first time since its first run.

The most surprising thing to me was how I completely missed Dalton not mentioning, or even hinting at, Cliff's heroism.  Every single detail he mentioned to Sebring, and then Tate, was about his experience.  He needed to be in that clique/circle really, really, bad.  

Then I thought back to all the scenes he had with Booth and the self-absorbed Dalton was right there for me to see.  Sure, there was some level of caring and concern for Cliff.  There was some very minimal inconvenience he endured in helping Cliff.  

But, in the main, that relationship was alllll about Rick's needs.  This makes me sad.

This is most definitely one of the movies which is light years better on the big screen with theater sound than on a TV.

I just saw this for the first time on a very large TV, and have only read this👆 last post so far.

I think Dalton and Booth had established their roles within their relationship as firmly as any roles they ever portrayed on screen. In those real-life roles, Dalton was the hero/movie star, and Booth was the stuntman/gofer. That said, on another level they were equals, and when it came to stunts or anything physical, Dalton recognized (but probably never stated) that Booth was superior. 

[BetterButter]

 

[Fool to cry]

10 hours ago, BetterButter said:

 

RIP Rick. Wish Quentin Tarantino would have given him a role in one of his movies so he could have a comeback in the 90s or 2000s like he did Travolta or David Carradine. And he claimed he was a fan. *shakes head*

Edited May 20, 2023 by Fool to cry

[SlovakPrincess]

Tarantino flirted with one kind of movie but was really making something more symbolic here.  I kind of wanted him to develop the dramatic story of a has-been working his way through descending levels of Hollywood and having to come to terms with that, as his more chill side kick (with a dark past) crosses paths with and flirts with an element of the counter culture that turns out to be evil.  Because a drama really committed to that (against the lovely back drop of Tarantino's shots of 1960s Hollywood) would've been pretty engrossing.  

And, yeah, I know, it's Tarantino.  Style and quirkiness (that doesn't often land for me but I understand why others love) interspersed with graphic violence is kinda his thing.  But don't tell me he couldn't have done something interesting and impactful about two macho men out of place in an industry and world that's changing too fast for them -- Jackie Brown is so good precisely because the two leads face and accept their own aging and hard luck in a hostile world, and it informs their actions through the film. 

Tarantino's clearly pining for a mythical past world of his media-loving childhood, where macho men could be macho men (and as long as they're "cool" we don't ask too many questions about how their nagging wife died, or whether Quentin was looking for an excuse to have a scene where two women get their faces absolutely pulverized, because if you think about those things for too long ... yikes).  Margot Robbie as Tate is an enigma precisely because she's really just a symbol of this world (that never really existed) and yet Tarantino really longs for and wants to "save."  

We get some really nice tension building with the Spahn Ranch scenes, and Rick putting his all into playing a character he initially felt was beneath him ... only to realize he's still going to have to resort to spaghetti westerns.  But that tension gets frittered away in the last act with misguided narration and the ultra-violent twist ending played for laughs that feels rushed after two hours of cruising along slowly and hinting at something deeper.  OR, if you're a fan of Tarantino's style, it perfectly fits his vision.  I'm not a Tarantino fan, and that's probably why his least Tarantino film (Jackie Brown) is my favorite and I found this film frustrating.

Edited April 1 by SlovakPrincess

[Sarah 103]

2 hours ago, SlovakPrincess said:

Tarantino flirted with one kind of movie but was really making something more symbolic here.  I kind of wanted him to develop the dramatic story of a has-been working his way through descending levels of Hollywood and having to come to terms with that, as his more chill side kick (with a dark past) crosses paths with and flirts with an element of the counter culture that turns out to be evil.  Because a drama really committed to that (against the lovely back drop of Tarantino's shots of 1960s Hollywood) would've been pretty engrossing.  

And, yeah, I know, it's Tarantino.  Style and quirkiness (that doesn't often land for me but I understand why others love) interspersed with graphic violence is kinda his thing.  But don't tell me he couldn't have done something interesting and impactful about two macho men out of place in an industry and world that's changing too fast for them -- Jackie Brown is so good precisely because the two leads face and accept their own aging and hard luck in a hostile world, and it informs their actions through the film. 

Tarantino's clearly pining for a mythical past world of his media-loving childhood, where macho men could be macho men (and as long as they're "cool" we don't ask too many questions about how their nagging wife died, or whether Quentin was looking for an excuse to have a scene where two women get their faces absolutely pulverized, because if you think about those things for too long ... yikes).  Margot Robbie as Tate is an enigma precisely because she's really just a symbol of this world (that never really existed) and yet Tarantino really longs for and wants to "save."  

We get some really nice tension building with the Spahn Ranch scenes, and Rick putting his all into playing a character he initially felt was beneath him ... only to realize he's still going to have to resort to spaghetti westerns.  But that tension gets frittered away in the last act with misguided narration and the ultra-violent twist ending played for laughs that feels rushed after two hours of cruising along slowly and hinting at something deeper.  OR, if you're a fan of Tarantino's style, it perfectly fits his vision.  I'm not a Tarantino fan, and that's probably why his least Tarantino film (Jackie Brown) is my favorite and I found this film frustrating.

Here's my take on it. If you start a story with "Once Upon a Time," the implied contract is that at the end "they will live happily ever after." In saving Tate and and making friends with Jay Sebring, Rick and Cliff now have an in with Tate and Polanksi. The line earlier in the movie about being one pool party away from a comeback is now completely possible and highly likely. 

I think Tarantino's nostalgia for a world that never existed is a huge part of this movie. It's why he chose the western and not a different genre, because that genre is very much about a past that never really existed the way it was depicted in movies or TV. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is calling back to the revisionist westerns about the closing of the west.