Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

[Milburn Stone]

4 hours ago, MsJamieDornan said:

I've watched the movie twice. Both times several people left. They were about 20 years old. I'm sure they have no clue.

Just as another data point: We saw it at the Music Box in Chicago, the only theater in the metro area showing it in 70mm. Perhaps because of the neighborhood (the Southport corridor, for those familiar with it) the audience was all people younger than us, including many in their twenties. We sat about halfway back; I can only speak to the half of the theater that was in front of us, but not a soul among them left before the conclusion. There was incredible energy in the auditorium during the movie, especially during the climax. And as everyone filed through the lobby  on the way out, I got a vibe of collective ecstatic dopamine, as if an entire auditorium had just had a simultaneous orgasm.

[StatisticalOutlier]

19 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

One thing that made me feel it was not a second too long was Tarantino's command of pacing. You've got all this frenetic action and adrenaline and then suddenly, a long, quiet conversation with just two people: Rick and the kid actor. Which is one of the most memorable sequences in the whole movie. Tarantino's a genius!

Thank for posting this.  I thought the movie seemed a little flaccid, but when I see it again, I'll look at it in terms of pacing.  And probably realize I was wrong.

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Just as another data point: We saw it at the Music Box in Chicago, the only theater in the metro area showing it in 70mm.

I didn't know they were showing it in 70mm anywhere.  I'm just grateful I can see it in 35mm and don't have to go to a fucking Alamo Drafthouse to do it.

[kiddo82]

I imagine that unless you're a blindly loyal Tarantino fan and wouldn't care what the movie is about anyway, most folks would go in with an assumption as to what the climax involves.  The trailer alone gives almost nothing away so if you didn't know who Sharon Tate was, I don't know that your curiosity would have been piqued enough to go see it.

Edited August 9, 2019 by kiddo82

[Milburn Stone]

12 hours ago, kiddo82 said:

I imagine that unless you're a blindly loyal Tarantino fan and wouldn't care what the movie is about anyway, most folks would go in with an assumption as to what the climax involves. 

I don't know exactly what you mean by the assumption you're assuming others have, but I can tell you

Spoiler

that for the whole movie, I was dreading it would conclude the same way events in real life did. The unexpected-by-me reversal put me in a state of ecstasy.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I have seen all of Tarantino's films except one (or one half, depending on how we count his contribution to Grindhouse), and enjoyed all of the ones I've seen except one...but I never have counted myself as a fan. I never wanted to collect them on physical media; once was always enough. When I looked back at the end of the year, I always had other favorites. So even though I thought he was talented, I never was combing the internet to see what he was going to be up to next. 

But I really liked this one. I was wrestling with aspects of it while it was going on, questioning whether this bit dragged on too long or that choice was in poor taste, but then I found the cumulative experience funny, sad, evocative, poignant. I almost felt I could touch this time and place I never experienced. Margot Robbie and the direction of her scenes captured something warm and decent but also mysterious; to me, she was an ideal Sharon. I think the decision to use the character more for a "presence," while keeping something unknowable about her, was the correct one. And Leonardo DiCaprio has two scenes (the one with the Julia Butters character and the funny/heartbreaking crack-up in his trailer or dressing room) that I feel are as good as anything he has ever done in a movie. 

The flaws of the movie faded on me, leaving the glow of what it gets right. I do think it's some of Tarantino's best work. I wondered if it would have worked even better as a Netflix miniseries, so I will check out that four-hour cut if it does happen. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Milburn Stone]

51 minutes ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Margot Robbie and the direction of her scenes captured something warm and decent but also mysterious; to me, she was an ideal Sharon. I think the decision to use the character more for a "presence," while keeping something unknowable about her, was the correct one.

Agree with so much in your post, including this, which causes me to remark: One of the most astonishing experiences I've had in a movie was the scene in which "Sharon Tate" is watching Sharon Tate on the screen in the Westwood movie theater. In any other movie, they would have re-created the original Matt Helm scene in order to place Margot Robbie in it, so that we wouldn't be distracted by the physical difference between the actress on the screen and the actress playing her in the seats. But in OUaT...iH, they didn't do that--and here's the remarkable part: Not for one second was I thinking that the two women were different! He's cutting back and forth between the movie on the screen and Robbie in her seat, and your eyes are picking up the information that they're different, but your brain is processing them (and totally buying them) as the same! No one but Tarantino could create that effect upon an audience.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Milburn Stone

[kiddo82]

10 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I don't know exactly what you mean by the assumption you're assuming others have, but I can tell you

  Reveal spoiler

that for the whole movie, I was dreading it would conclude the same way events in real life did. The unexpected-by-me reversal put me in a state of ecstasy.

Just that the movie would involve August 8-9, 1969 in some way.  Not that one would assume which way Tarantino might go with it, just that you figure something involving that event would be featured.   

[NUguy514]

Nope.  Pointless, boring, lacking in almost any tension (including the Spahn Ranch scene since there was never a doubt for me that Brad Pitt would swagger out of there), and wayyyyyyyy too long.  Tarantino usually has a few scenes at least that are amazingly written, and this film had exactly none.  Even more than his other films (most of which I love/like), it felt like watching Tarantino jerk off for 161 minutes over how much of a film buff he is – delightful for him, not so much for me.  Also, I saw the end coming before the movie's halfway point.

Leo was ACTING, and I hate it when he's ACTING (although the scene after his flub was the only time I laughed in the film).  Even though he was playing an ACTOR who is ACTING, I can still see Leo the SERIOUS ACTOR ACTING underneath all of that.  It's tedious for me.  Brad was...fine, but I got no sense of anything internal; I mostly found his to be a superficial performance.  Margot Robbie, whom I love, was given nothing to do, so...whatever.  My favorite performance was by the dog; I loved the dog.  Oh, and I actually thought Dakota Fanning was really good in her brief role.

I saw this at the Arclight in Hollywood, the seemingly perfect venue for an adulatory crowd; it seemed to hold most of the audience's interest, but there wasn't applause when the credits rolled.

Incidentally, exactly a week prior to seeing this film, I was with friends at the very same Arclight eating dinner before seeing The Farewell (which I enjoyed), and Tarantino was at a table right behind ours.  He is obnoxiously loud and basically brushed off and shamed a male fan who came to ask a question only to accept quite happily a photo request from a female fan barely a few minutes later.  So, basically, Tarantino was exactly the asshole he always seemed to be.

[Black Knight]

On 8/9/2019 at 5:35 PM, kiddo82 said:

Just that the movie would involve August 8-9, 1969 in some way.  Not that one would assume which way Tarantino might go with it, just that you figure something involving that event would be featured.   

I think the twist itself was obvious if one had seen some of the media prior. First, people knew that there was a twist of some kind because there was so much emphasis on asking people who had already seen the movie not to give any spoilers. From there it was an easy assumption that the twist must have to do with the Manson murders. But also, Sharon Tate's sister had been quite opposed to the film and then suddenly did a 180 - however much she liked Margot Robbie's portrayal, it's doubtful she would have changed her mind if the film had still included her sister's horrific murder. Pretty much everyone I knew seemed to have guessed weeks ago just from that, although many thought that Tate herself would get to turn the tables. But then Bruce Lee's daughter complaining about her father being beaten in a fight by the Brad Pitt character gave away the rest of the twist. And also, in a what wasn't in media - there was a lot of concern prior to the film's first screenings, with Sharon Tate's sister leading the way, about the offensiveness of Tarantino of all people depicting the Manson murders for a commercial entertainment product, but as soon as the film started being screened that all just melted away for obvious reasons. Just imagine the slew of critical pieces that would have been written, and the watercooler discussions at work, if the Manson murders had been depicted.

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Black Knight said:

Sharon Tate's sister had been quite opposed to the film and then suddenly did a 180 - however much she liked Margot Robbie's portrayal, it's doubtful she would have changed her mind if the film had still included her sister's horrific murder.

I know I teared up when the credits rolled and confirmed that Sharon, Jay, and all the others were going to live so I can only imagine how Debra must have felt. Do we know how she found out? I'd assume that Tarantino would contact her directly and just tell her how it ends but maybe he invited a representative to attend a private screening or something.

[Simon Boccanegra]

3 hours ago, Black Knight said:

But then Bruce Lee's daughter complaining about her father being beaten in a fight by the Brad Pitt character gave away the rest of the twist. 

I'd say it ended inconclusively, actually. I keep reading that Brad Pitt's character kicked Bruce Lee's ass and similar (the daughter claims her father was made a "punching bag"), but the way I recall it, it was more that Bruce Lee had a tougher fight than he was expecting. It was 1-1 in their best of three when the Kurt Russell character and his wife shut things down.  

Some who knew Bruce Lee have said that the arrogance shown by the Mike Moh version of the film was not made up out of whole cloth.  

Edited August 12, 2019 by Simon Boccanegra

[Mu Shu]

I went again yesterday. Even better the second time around. You can notice things you missed, like the dog food flavors on the cans-Bird flavor, Rat flavor, and Racoon flavor. Good food for bad dogs. The little flourishes like this I dig. 

Also, Barbicide has not changed at all in 50 years. 

When that song comes on, and that car pulled up, I got chills, again. This is filmmaking kids. Knowing what will happen, but still feeling the suspense. 

The horseback scene with Tex racing back to the ranch is sublime. I’d like to know who the rider was. 

It’s not just about the pretty scenes and gonzo violence. It’s a great buddy movie. 

[Dejana]

On 8/11/2019 at 7:03 PM, Black Knight said:

I think the twist itself was obvious if one had seen some of the media prior. First, people knew that there was a twist of some kind because there was so much emphasis on asking people who had already seen the movie not to give any spoilers. From there it was an easy assumption that the twist must have to do with the Manson murders. But also, Sharon Tate's sister had been quite opposed to the film and then suddenly did a 180 - however much she liked Margot Robbie's portrayal, it's doubtful she would have changed her mind if the film had still included her sister's horrific murder. Pretty much everyone I knew seemed to have guessed weeks ago just from that, although many thought that Tate herself would get to turn the tables. But then Bruce Lee's daughter complaining about her father being beaten in a fight by the Brad Pitt character gave away the rest of the twist. And also, in a what wasn't in media - there was a lot of concern prior to the film's first screenings, with Sharon Tate's sister leading the way, about the offensiveness of Tarantino of all people depicting the Manson murders for a commercial entertainment product, but as soon as the film started being screened that all just melted away for obvious reasons. Just imagine the slew of critical pieces that would have been written, and the watercooler discussions at work, if the Manson murders had been depicted.

The tipoff for me was when OUATIH was announced as a summer release, plus the reports that the budget was going to be sizeable (at lesst $70-80+ million). I figured a major studio like Sony was not going to spend that kind of money, plus marketing costs, for a movie that recreates a famous pregnant woman's brutal death, only to release it well outside of awards season at that. Unless, IDK, they wanted to see if Cinemascore decided to create a grade lower than F.... Hollywood just doesn't work like that in the 2010s, no matter how much some exec might have been on board if Tarantino had been willing to go there.

[StatisticalOutlier]

10 hours ago, Mu Shu said:

I went again yesterday. Even better the second time around. You can notice things you missed, like the dog food flavors on the cans-Bird flavor, Rat flavor, and Racoon flavor. Good food for bad dogs. The little flourishes like this I dig. 

I went again today.  And yes, even better the second time around.  That's partly because I don't like suspense, and there's no suspense the second time around, but also noticing small things.

Another great Brad Pitt moment (I think I am becoming a fangirl) was at the beginning, when the Al Pacino character said, "Ah, is this your son?"  I totally bought Pitt's laugh.

But what really got me this time was DiCaprio in the final scene in the driveway, talking on the intercom.  Horrific things had gone down, but I was so happy for him.

[anyanka323]

Having finally seen it, it's worth seeing. 

I had figured when the film was first announced that there would be some revisionist history, similar to Inglorious Basterds, especially when Debra Tate gave her blessing to it.  As the only surviving immediate family member of Sharon Tate and her work with her late mother and sister as advocates for victim rights, she has been justifiably very protective of her sister's legacy and how she has been portrayed.  A coworker also saw it and we had different takes on why Debra Tate gave her approval to it.  His take was that it allowed her sister to live and gave Sharon a happy ending.  My interpretation was that even with the little dialogue Margot Robie had, it portrayed her as more than a blond starlet, especially in the scene where she goes to see her own movie.  My view was that it was that plus the happy ending that possibly pleased Debra Tate. 

I'm re-listening to Karina Longworth's You Must Remember This podcast episodes on the Manson Family and the Tate/La Bianca murders.  It was made in 2015, pre-MeToo, and I wonder if her views on Polanski might be different now.  It provides great background on both the movie and music connections associated with Manson. 

[Cheezwiz]

3 hours ago, anyanka323 said:

I'm re-listening to Karina Longworth's You Must Remember This podcast episodes on the Manson Family and the Tate/La Bianca murders.

I've heard a lot about this podcast and these particular episodes, so I plan to check it out. 

For others curious about that era and the strange Hollywood connections to Manson and his followers, I'm reading a new book that just came out entitled "Chaos" by Tom O'Neil. O'Neil was an entertainment reporter who started working for the now defunct Premiere Magazine on a short  piece on Manson for the 30th anniversary of the murders. He wound up disappearing down a rabbit hole for two decades investigating the case and finally put his findings in a book. I haven't gotten very far into it yet, but it's intriguing (in a tin-foil hat conspiracy theory way) and may be of interest to people who enjoyed the movie.

[VCRTracking]

On the one hand I appreciate Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was a friend of Lee's and felt the film did him a disservice, on the other Bruce Lee literally came up with a fight scene where the ONLY way Lee could defeat Jabbar in a fight was if the latter was depicted with extremely sensitive eyes and the former blinded him with sunlight in footage that would be used in the posthumous Game of Death. Lee didn't always portray himself as invincible.

[johntfs]

On 7/30/2019 at 11:20 AM, Spartan Girl said:

Bruce Lee's daughter wasn't really happy with the way they portrayed him, and I can't say I don't blame her.  I got all excited about the Bruce Lee stuff in the trailer, but to wind up having him portrayed as a prima donna whom Brad Pitt beat in a fight?  No.  Just no.

In the real world, Bruce would have wiped the floor with Brad.

I think a lot of people kind of miss the point of that scene.  It isn't "Yeah!  I kicked Bruce Lee's ass!"  Instead that scene is Cliff Booth remembering how he fucked up his life.  How he went from being a respected stunt perform to getting stuck forever being the driver/gofer/handyman of an aging manchild actor.

As for Bruce Lee's characterization, there's two things to consider.  First, this isn't our Bruce Lee.  This is Bruce Lee from an alternate dimension/timeline/universe.  History is different so this version of Bruce Lee will be different.

Second, we experience this memory from Cliff Booth's perspective.  We shouldn't expect Booth's memory of Lee, the man who "goaded" him into ruining his own career to be a completely fair, accurate portrayal. 

As for the fight (which came off more as an impromptu sparring session more than anything else) it seemed reasonable.  Booth was used to actors inflating their abilities and was surprised by Lee's skill and speed, which knocked him on his ass.  When Lee attacked again, Booth was ready (and had the skill and experience to use that readiness, at which point Lee hit the car).

I will say that had the bout continued, I'd give the advantage to Lee who not only had his martial arts skill, but had a body that was a good twenty years younger than that of Booth.  Of course, that presupposes a sparring session with rules and no desire to inflict death or serious injury.

In a "real" fight, Booth would likely win simply because it's clear that he's a killer (and clearly a trained, very experienced killer at that) while Bruce Lee isn't.  It's noted that Booth is a veteran.  It's very likely he saw active combat in WWII and Korea.

[ruby24]

He didn't depict him in a very flattering light, so I understand people being upset about that. Because it's really about the fact that Bruce Lee left Hollywood because he couldn't get work due to racism, and the way he's shown in this movie was as if he was this big success or something. That wasn't the case yet. He had to leave Hollywood to become a star.

Also, there's kind of a timeline error here- they say he's the "series lead" but what are they talking about? The Green Hornet? That show was over by 1969, it ran from 66-67. And Bruce Lee wasn't the lead of that show, at least not here. It was repackaged in China as the Kato show and he became famous there because of it.

[johntfs]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

He didn't depict him in a very flattering light, so I understand people being upset about that. Because it's really about the fact that Bruce Lee left Hollywood because he couldn't get work due to racism, and the way he's shown in this movie was as if he was this big success or something. That wasn't the case yet. He had to leave Hollywood to become a star.

Also, there's kind of a timeline error here- they say he's the "series lead" but what are they talking about? The Green Hornet? That show was over by 1969, it ran from 66-67. And Bruce Lee wasn't the lead of that show, at least not here. It was repackaged in China as the Kato show and he became famous there because of it.

Again, that scene was Cliff Booth's memory.  It most likely took place in '66 or '67.  While Lee wasn't the lead in The Green Hornet he got a lot more fan mail than the lead. 

[Milburn Stone]

6 hours ago, johntfs said:

Again, that scene was Cliff Booth's memory.  It most likely took place in '66 or '67.  While Lee wasn't the lead in The Green Hornet he got a lot more fan mail than the lead. 

I'm a tremendous fan of the movie--including that fight scene--but I see no evidence that we're meant to understand it as Cliff Booth's memory. We're meant to understand it as the alternate reality of Tarantino's imagination.

[johntfs]

9 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I'm a tremendous fan of the movie--including that fight scene--but I see no evidence that we're meant to understand it as Cliff Booth's memory. We're meant to understand it as the alternate reality of Tarantino's imagination.

You didn't see any evidence?  It was pretty clear to me.  In the scene before you have Cliff asking Rick about doing some stunt work on the showing that has Rick as a guest star.  Rick nixes it because the stunt coordinator has history with Cliff over that "Green Hornet" thing.  Rick then asks Cliff to go fix his TV antenna.  Cliff goes there and starts to work, starring up into the sky regretfully at which point we have the scene with him and Bruce Lee.  

[ruby24]

4 hours ago, johntfs said:

You didn't see any evidence?  It was pretty clear to me.  In the scene before you have Cliff asking Rick about doing some stunt work on the showing that has Rick as a guest star.  Rick nixes it because the stunt coordinator has history with Cliff over that "Green Hornet" thing.  Rick then asks Cliff to go fix his TV antenna.  Cliff goes there and starts to work, starring up into the sky regretfully at which point we have the scene with him and Bruce Lee.  

Oh, I see. I completely did not realize this was a flashback scene.

[Milburn Stone]

22 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

Oh, I see. I completely did not realize this was a flashback scene.

It may have been a flashback (I'll have to see the movie again to be sure; until then I'll take @johntfs's word for it), but that doesn't mean it was an inaccurate depiction of events in the universe of the movie. Cliff on the roof realizes he effed up, thinks back to how he effed up, and we see an objective third-person (the camera) account of said effing up. If the film were meant as a refraction of events through the mind of Cliff, we would never have seen the scene between Rick and the kid actor, since Cliff wasn't present for that. And if no other scene is meant as a refraction of events through the mind of Cliff, it would be weird to say the least to make this one fight scene be that.

[Sarah 103]

On 8/2/2019 at 9:21 PM, Joimiaroxeu said:

Does anyone know who the child actress, er, actor was supposed to be referencing (if anyone)? Meryl Streep doesn't work age-wise. Jodie Foster does but it looks like she was only doing TV work at that time.

I think she's supposed to be based on Jodie Foster. Foster was guest staring in TV shows at about that time. I think the child actor may have been slightly older than Foster was at the time, so it's not a perfect match.

On 8/4/2019 at 4:44 PM, answerphone said:

However, I really hate the thought of reliving the Manson murders. I don't want the gore, blood, and screaming in front of me on the big screen.

Should I see the movie or wait until it's on TV and avoid those scenes?

If violence bothers you, wait until it's on TV. There's only two scenes that are brutally violent. One of which is very short with almost no no blood but there is a ton of blood, gore, and screaming for a much longer scene that lasts a little over 15 minutes. 

On 8/5/2019 at 9:29 AM, Yokosmom said:

Since this is a fable, my reading of the last scene is that now that Rick has been introduced to his neighbors, he may end up in one of Polanski's films and end up being a character actor in that wave of quirky independent movies of the 1970s.  And he can still employ Cliff!

If not Polanski's films than someone else that Polanski put him in touch with/put in a good word for his new friend and neighbor. 

On 8/5/2019 at 11:02 AM, Milburn Stone said:

This was absolutely my interpretation too. I believe we are meant to see that walk up the driveway as a rebirth, a resurrection. A happy ending on top of a happy ending.

To me, what was significant is that he gets invited inside, part of the in-crowd. He talked about being one pool party away from re-starting his career, and now he's inside the house. 

[johntfs]

23 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

It may have been a flashback (I'll have to see the movie again to be sure; until then I'll take @johntfs's word for it), but that doesn't mean it was an inaccurate depiction of events in the universe of the movie. Cliff on the roof realizes he effed up, thinks back to how he effed up, and we see an objective third-person (the camera) account of said effing up. If the film were meant as a refraction of events through the mind of Cliff, we would never have seen the scene between Rick and the kid actor, since Cliff wasn't present for that. And if no other scene is meant as a refraction of events through the mind of Cliff, it would be weird to say the least to make this one fight scene be that.

There is at least one other scene in which Cliff is arguing with (really getting chewed out by) his then wife while he's holding a spear gun that is pointed in her general direction (and while we don't see him fire it, the context seems to be that yeah, he did in fact murder his wife).  There's also a bit with Rick auditioning for The Great Escape.  I think there are a few more for Rick as well, involving bits from "Bounty Law." 

Essentially while most of the movie takes place in 1969, there were a few flashback, drop ins, etc to help the audience understand the full context of what was happening or being discussed or referred to.

Edited August 24, 2019 by johntfs

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Critics' Choice Award nominations:

Best Picture

Best Actor – Leonardo DiCaprio

Best Supporting Actor – Brad Pitt

Best Young Actor/Actress – Julia Butters

Best Acting Ensemble

Best Director – Quentin Tarantino

Best Original Screenplay – Quentin Tarantino

Best Cinematography – Robert Richardson

Best Production Design – Barbara Ling, Nancy Haigh

Best Editing – Fred Raskin

Best Costume Design – Arianne Phillips

Best Hair and Makeup

[ElectricBoogaloo]

SAG Award nominations:

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role - Leonardo DiCaprio

[ElectricBoogaloo]

SAG nominations:
Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Brad Pitt
Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture
Outstanding Action Performance by a Stunt Ensemble in a Motion Picture

Edited December 12, 2019 by ElectricBoogaloo

[Norma Desmond]

I loved it! And I'm no Tarantino fan. I think people who are in their 40s and 50s will enjoy this way more than younger folks.

Never thought I'd say these words, but yes! Brad Pitt for the Best Actor Oscar!

[stonehaven]

I rented this on streaming last night and God, I loved it...the plot, there really wasn't one 'til the end but it just felt like a period piece with two guys who could be brothers. Leo and Brad were great in it. 

What others see as flaws, I see as hitting my sweet spot...the long drives...on freeways with little traffic..the pans of all the older buildings...the closeups of the dashboards and the music and the radio jingles..all of it..nostalgia perfected.

I was born in '71 in Minnesota and growing up, Hollywood always seemed like a mystical place instead of the way it is now....Plus, my city recently received 40 inches of snow in a two week time period...If QT wanted to linger on the landscapes and freeways, that was fine by me...gives me hope that we shall see green again...

I am not a QT fan as this is only the second film of his I've seen..(Basterds was the other) but if you want nostalgia and a twist, I'd say, see this movie...I may have to again in a few years...

[dwmarch]

On 8/24/2019 at 11:04 AM, johntfs said:

There is at least one other scene in which Cliff is arguing with (really getting chewed out by) his then wife while he's holding a spear gun that is pointed in her general direction (and while we don't see him fire it, the context seems to be that yeah, he did in fact murder his wife).

The boat must have hit a bump or something.

Not much comedy in this one but I laughed hard when Leo's character was lamenting his fate to the little girl and said something like "in 15 years, this will be you!"

[pigs-in-space]

On 8/17/2019 at 3:06 PM, anyanka323 said:

I'm re-listening to Karina Longworth's You Must Remember This podcast episodes on the Manson Family and the Tate/La Bianca murders.  It was made in 2015, pre-MeToo, and I wonder if her views on Polanski might be different now.  It provides great background on both the movie and music connections associated with Manson. 

I can’t recommend this podcast and that season in particular enough. And even though it was in 2015 I don’t think she excused or romanticized Polanski (and his later rape of a child) or his relationship with Tate at all.

On a random note, as much as I enjoyed the alternate history ending I did not buy that Tex or the girls would just change Charlie’s plan like that. But that was a minor quibble in that scene which overall I found very funny. I laughed out loud when Francesca popped out and let the dog in the room. And why the hell was Leo’s character listening to The Royal Guardsmen’s Snoopy and the Red Barron??? I got a kick out of it because my mom always played her old record of Snoopy’s Christmas when I was a kid.

[RealHousewife]

Margot was wonderful as Sharon Tate. Sharon is one of the most gorgeous women I’ve ever seen, and she was said to be a very sweet person. I’ve always been really interested in her life. I love that they made her part of the story and were sensitive to Sharon’s memory and to her family. Very well done. 

[Norma Desmond]

On 12/12/2019 at 6:08 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Critics' Choice Award nominations:

Best Picture

Best Actor – Leonardo DiCaprio

Best Supporting Actor – Brad Pitt

Best Young Actor/Actress – Julia Butters

Julia Butters is absolutely wonderful in this, and her hilarious exchange with Leo is the highlight of the movie (though, to me, the whole movie is wonderful; this scene is just the cherry on top). She is beautiful too; looks a lot like Brooke Shields at that age.

Her character's seriousness about her "craft" cracked me up.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2019 by Norma Desmond

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Three Golden Globe Awards!

• Best screenplay — Motion picture - Quentin Tarantino
• Best performance by a supporting actor in any motion picture - Brad Pitt
• Best motion picture — Musical or comedy

Edited January 6, 2020 by ElectricBoogaloo

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Quentin Tarantino's acceptance speech:

Brad Pitt's acceptance speech:

Best picture acceptance speech:

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by ElectricBoogaloo

[ElectricBoogaloo]

BAFTA nominations:

Best Film
Director - Quentin Tarantino
Original Screenplay - Quentin Tarantino
Leading Actor - Leonardo DiCaprio
Supporting Actress - Margot Robbie
Supporting Actor - Brad Pitt
Casting - Victoria Thomas
Editing - Barbara Ling, Nancy Haigh
Costume Design - Arianne Phillips

[BetterButter]

 

[kiddo82]

On 1/7/2020 at 1:00 PM, BetterButter said:

 

The Feet Song now might be my favorite thing Screen Junkies has ever done.  I think I cried actual tears I was laughing so hard.  I loved in the commentary they said they weren't sure if there were enough shots of feet to support the song and they quickly realized there were.

Edited January 11, 2020 by kiddo82

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Critics' Choice Awards!

BEST PICTURE
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR - Brad Pitt
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY - Quentin Tarantino
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN - Barbara Ling, Nancy Haigh

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Oscar nominations:

Performance by an actor in a leading role - Leonardo DiCaprio

Performance by an actor in a supporting role - Brad Pitt

Achievement in cinematography - Robert Richardson

Achievement in costume design - Arianne Phillips

Achievement in directing - Quentin Tarantino

Best motion picture of the year - David Heyman, Shannon McIntosh and Quentin Tarantino

Achievement in production design - Barbara Ling, Nancy Haigh

Achievement in sound editing - Wylie Stateman

Achievement in sound mixing - Michael Minkler, Christian P. Minkler and Mark Ulano

Original screenplay - Quentin Tarantino

[Sarah 103]

This movie deserves all of the Oscar nominations it received. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Sarah 103

[Growsonwalls]

I feel like Leo deserves the Oscar more than Brad. Brad was good, but he was Brad Pitt. Leo really stepped outside the box with his performance of the has-been star. His scene where he tears up reading about the cowboy with the child actress was a wonderfully moving scene in a movie that otherwise came across as overly slick. In fact, I think all the Leo "acting on set" scenes were the movie's highlights, because they had an emotional truth that the Manson scenes lacked. It wouldn't have been possible without Leo's brilliant acting. Yes it's a bit too meta -- a Hollywood superstar playing an aging B-movie star. But you believed it.

But then again Leo tends to get rewarded for his worst work (The Revenant) instead of his best work so ...

[Pickles Aplenty]

On 1/16/2020 at 2:24 PM, Growsonwalls said:

I feel like Leo deserves the Oscar more than Brad. Brad was good, but he was Brad Pitt. Leo really stepped outside the box with his performance of the has-been star. His scene where he tears up reading about the cowboy with the child actress was a wonderfully moving scene in a movie that otherwise came across as overly slick. In fact, I think all the Leo "acting on set" scenes were the movie's highlights, because they had an emotional truth that the Manson scenes lacked. It wouldn't have been possible without Leo's brilliant acting. Yes it's a bit too meta -- a Hollywood superstar playing an aging B-movie star. But you believed it.

But then again Leo tends to get rewarded for his worst work (The Revenant) instead of his best work so ...

This.  I enjoyed Brad Pitt in this movie, but Leo gave the best performance, IMO.  I agree that this role should have been his win, over The Revenant.  He had me laughing and tearing up, the entire time.

As for the movie itself, I really liked it.  Easily one of the best movies of the year, for me.  I know Tarantino movies aren't for everyone, but I have always enjoyed them, and I really like his style.  I had a fun time, watching this movie, and I don't always have fun at the movies anymore, so that means something.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Billina

[Growsonwalls]

6 hours ago, Billina said:

This.  I enjoyed Brad Pitt in this movie, but Leo gave the best performance, IMO.  I agree that this role should have been his win, over The Revenant.  He had me laughing and tearing up, the entire time.

As for the movie itself, I really liked it.  Easily one of the best movies of the year, for me.  I know Tarantino movies aren't for everyone, but I have always enjoyed them, and I really like his style.  I had a fun time, watching this movie, and I don't always have fun at the movies anymore, so that means something.

I also think Leo really stepped outside the box in this performance. He's used to playing charming, slick characters -- from Catch Me if You Can to Wolf of Wall Street. Here he's peeling back the slickness and charm and showing a has-been star in a very bad place mentally. Him crying reading the novel had me wiping away a few tears -- at a Tarantino movie! I also loved his self-monologue in the dressing room. 

I also think we expect Leo to be really good in all his movies so we aren't that surprised when he is really good. 

As for the movie I kind of wish they had explored some of the darker sides of the Tate-Polanski marriage. Polanski was chronically unfaithful and Tate was increasingly reliant on the support and friendship of her ex-fiance Jay Sebring. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

SAG Award win!

Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Supporting Role - Brad Pitt

[msrachelj]

Love Leo and Brad love seeing them together in this movie.  Great acting great chemistry. Very entertaining, I actually like a longer movie when I am enjoying it. 
And the soundtrack was fantastic.  
“Anna Cat” and the pit bull: wonderful acting❤️
No mention of how incredibly HOT Brad Pitts body is at mid 50’s?! Just Wow! He looks beautiful.  Best aging award for an actor, hands down. ❤️🥰

[lasu]

On 2/9/2020 at 12:56 PM, msrachelj said:

No mention of how incredibly HOT Brad Pitts body is at mid 50’s?! Just Wow! He looks beautiful.  Best aging award for an actor, hands down. ❤️🥰

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.  I've been a complete fangirl since Legends of the Fall.

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).  I went the first time by myself, and I had trouble enjoying and laughing at the comedy because I didn't know how they were going to handle the murders.  I kept getting more and more tense.  So once I knew how it ended, I was excited to see it again.  I definitely enjoyed it more the second time, because I could relax.  

[txhorns79]

I finally saw the movie.  It was enjoyable, and I appreciated the attention to period detail.  
As to the ending, I enjoyed the sheer ridiculousness of it, particularly the flamethrower.  There was also a little sadness mixed in, as Rick went to go meet Sharon and the rest of the people staying with her, after having dispatched with the people who, in reality, murdered all of them.  I'll admit, I was a little concerned the movie would feel exploitative, but it didn't so I think they did a good job.   

Quote

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 could be wrong, but my presumption would be that he has a good trainer and was a on a very strict diet.  It's very hard to look like that at his age.