Filmspotting Forum

Filmspotting Message Boards => Movie Talk (Spoiler Edition) => Topic started by: Junior on July 27, 2019, 06:15:43 PM

Title: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Junior on July 27, 2019, 06:15:43 PM
Is QT Hollywood's most optimistic director? Movies save the day again!
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood - SPOILERS!!!
Post by: 1SO on July 27, 2019, 10:32:18 PM
So glad to see this so I can talk about the Ending.

I only watched the trailers. Did anyone go in tipped off that we wouldn't see the Sharon Tate murder? It took me completely by surprise, even though Tarantino did something similar with Bastards. I'm also relieved because I don't trust Tarantino to bring the right amount of seriousness and weight to real life murders. Instead, we get one of the epic sequences of violence of his career, turning this into yet another revenge fantasy. It's brilliant because it gives a happy ending to our heroes and to Sharon Tate.

I wonder when the articles will come out about the violence against women. I think Tarantino took extra steps to demonize the Manson women here, so we recoil at the amount of violence and not the gender of the victims. It's also just a really cool callback to have DiCaprio come out with that flamethrower.

The scene at Spahn Ranch has that great drawn-out tension Tarantino is so good at, but an even better one for me was Cliff Booth mixing it up with Bruce Lee. It shows a different, very believable side of Lee filtered through the other stuntmen. Also some perfect meta-casting of Zoe Ball as Kurt Russell's wife.

Rick Dalton complaining about the heat of the flamethrower is another great little moment. In general, I noticed Tarantino would break up his usual long dialogue scenes with brief cutaways. A very welcome decision. Of course, he also shows mac n cheese made in real time and when Sharon Tate goes to see her movie we sit through not one but two movie trailers.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: FLYmeatwad on July 27, 2019, 11:24:25 PM
The scene at the ranch really is something, it's filmed like a horror film in some ways. Obviously we don't get the Tate murder, but even while watching it that felt like how it would have been shot, the slow creeping up on a door, the sneaking around, etc.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: bama_filmsnob on July 29, 2019, 10:27:42 AM
Loved the tension in the scene at the ranch.

I had listened to Karina Longworth's Podcast 'You Must Remember This' 12 part series on Charles Manson's Hollywood, so I knew some background. Was hoping that Cliff wouldn't be killed like Donald Shea.

Anyone notice the jump cuts in the scene with DiCaprio and Olyphant?
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Will on July 29, 2019, 11:23:10 PM

I wonder when the articles will come out about the violence against women. I think Tarantino took extra steps to demonize the Manson women here, so we recoil at the amount of violence and not the gender of the victims. It's also just a really cool callback to have DiCaprio come out with that flamethrower.


Mmmm, you can feel both. You can feel both quite intensely, in fact. I did. His killing of the teenage girls pretty much confirms he shot and killed his wife on purpose too. I feel that this is Tarantino's most naked attempt to show (what he believes as) morally justifiable brutal violence against women. The final scene was too much. He didn't have to drag out their deaths. He didn't have to show Cliff running a girl's head into a bar repeatedly. He didn't have to show a woman suffer an extreme panic attack before being burned to death. There's a sick glee fo his indulgences here. Is that just the violence? No, I would feel less upset about it if the violence would happen to men. I have no qualms in being able to admit that. Tarantino didn't have to show that violence, but he did, as he did in THE HATEFUL EIGHT and every now and then in his other films.

I would not be surprised if he voted for Trump.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: FLYmeatwad on August 02, 2019, 07:50:27 PM
I liked how the dog bit the guy's balls, you knew that dog was going to give it to someone at some point in this movie.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: 1SO on August 02, 2019, 10:36:03 PM
I thought one of the women would kill the dog, which would send Pitt into a rage. I loved the humor of the wife opening the bathroom door to let the dog in while they wait out the rest of the attack.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Will on August 03, 2019, 08:17:08 PM
Beyond my initial reaction, so much of the "six months later" segment felt meaningless. I agree - the dog should've been killed - at least then, there would be some suspense to the proceedings. Far more suspense in BASTERDS - even though we know how it is going to end, we don't know exactly who will live or die throughout the finale and we aren't sure what will happen to Aldo. I don't think Tarantino thought the ending through that much. I felt similarly with DJANGO UNCHAINED.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Solid Blake on August 05, 2019, 05:27:32 AM
Things I liked:

Things I didn't like:
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Solid Blake on August 05, 2019, 07:55:55 AM
I need to think on this film more, but I do rank it around mid-range-Tarantino for now. Seeing it in 35MM in a historic theater definitely helped with the prestige factor, but I really miss his now deceased editor, Sally Menke.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Fugee on August 15, 2019, 05:02:18 PM
I was really lamenting the fact that we didn't get to see Rick and Cliff in Italy making movies. Think it probably woulda made a far more entertaining and interesting movie than what we got. Also lmao at the Bruce Lee scene, maybe the least believable of the alternate history portions.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: colonel_mexico on August 17, 2019, 08:36:18 PM
I have been a huge Tarantino fan since I was a teenager, watching PULP FICTION on an endless loop my junior year summer.  This might be one of his greatest films yet, but I doubt teenage me would have enjoyed this one as much.  The movie feels like an expression of Tarantino's love for stuntman, an homage to stunts in general.  For awhile it felt like you could play a drinking game for every time a stuntman was used in any of the scenes and meta-scenes throughout the movie. The actors themselves are great, Dicaprio's performance is incredible, the has-been, drunk actor trying to hold on-a less suicidal Norman Maine with a few slightly edgy performances left in him.  Pitt's Booth borderlines misogyny, but I there are some hero undertones, even if they are hyper-masculine.  He refuses sex with the young girl and tries to rescue his friend from the scary hippy women.  The film hints at horror and what is sort of an era of the rise of the serial killer, but also of the so-called profile of a serial killer. Part of that profile does include men who were emasculated or abused by their mothers which manifest in hatred toward women.  But Cliff isn't a serial killer, nor do I think he hates women, but you do get a sense that he is extremely distrustful.  Cliff is extremely self-aware and his shortcomings don't slow him down, in extreme contrast to his good friend.  The final scene violence seemed like normal, over-the-top Tarantino violence, KILL BILL Vol.1 had extreme amounts of violence, which appear more as homages to pulp B-movies of the past rather than any kind of social statement.  Margot Robbie was amazing on another level, it reminded me a kind of silent movie actress.  Her beauty is unusual in this because it seems so innocent, which is much different then the sultry, sort-of succubus in WOLF OF WALL STREET.  Greta Garbo of the silent era was able to do this very well, move between darker female characters to sweet and innocence with just a look, the scene where Sharon is driving down the street the shot of her face made Margot almost unrecognizable.  She was able to do so much without having any real part in the movie.

More homages!  The references to the director Antonio Margheriti and the final ad for Red Apple cigarettes were funny and touching moments for a life-long fan of QT.  This would have been a great way to go out, even though the upcoming STAR TREK will be the last (if he holds to the 10 movies and done promise).  The jump cuts, music, meta-trailers and ads, the mise-en-scene, and all the stunts make this a fun movie for someone like me who is fascinated with how movies are made. 
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: IDrinkYourMilkshake on October 07, 2019, 11:47:49 AM
Is QT Hollywood's most optimistic director? Movies save the day again!

It's brilliant because it gives a happy ending to our heroes and to Sharon Tate.

As with Inglourious Basterds, I struggle with this line of thinking. In IB the Nazi high command was taken down in late 1944... by which time 90% of all the lives WW2 claimed were already lost. And the Nazi's got their asses handed to them 6 months later anyway. Hitler topped himself, and although it's a pity he didn't face real justice his demise in IB doesn't satisfy that itch for me... because it's only pretend. And then most of the rest of the high command got what they deserved at Nuremberg. 

As for ...Hollywood, it's all well and good us air breathers skipping out of the cinema chatting about how glad we were she didn't get all murdered, the reality is that she did get all murdered, along with 6 other people over two nights. Tarantino's cartoon 're-imaginings' of these events don't satisfy anything, so far as I can tell.


Things I didn't like:
  • Sharon Tate's unnecessary involvement/red herring role within this alternate history
  • This film could have trimmed away 30 minutes or so and would have benefited greatly from it


Anyone who knows nothing about the Manson family or the slaughter at Tate's house will come away from this film wondering what Margot Robbie had to do with anything.

And at least 30 minutes could have been trimmed. I've rewatched a lot of Tarantino recently and have come to the conclusion that Reservoir Dogs is what every one of his films since Jackie Brown should have been: 90 minutes long.

I'd have enjoyed this film a lot more if the story were not so closely linked to real life events - a Manson-esque cult with some kind of high profile target, but not the real things. Yknow... then Pitt n DiCaprio could foil their plot with cunning, rather than just being in the right place at the right time because movie.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Junior on October 08, 2019, 10:31:52 AM
Is QT Hollywood's most optimistic director? Movies save the day again!

It's brilliant because it gives a happy ending to our heroes and to Sharon Tate.

As with Inglourious Basterds, I struggle with this line of thinking. In IB the Nazi high command was taken down in late 1944... by which time 90% of all the lives WW2 claimed were already lost. And the Nazi's got their asses handed to them 6 months later anyway. Hitler topped himself, and although it's a pity he didn't face real justice his demise in IB doesn't satisfy that itch for me... because it's only pretend. And then most of the rest of the high command got what they deserved at Nuremberg. 

As for ...Hollywood, it's all well and good us air breathers skipping out of the cinema chatting about how glad we were she didn't get all murdered, the reality is that she did get all murdered, along with 6 other people over two nights. Tarantino's cartoon 're-imaginings' of these events don't satisfy anything, so far as I can tell.

Both Inglourious Basterds and ...Hollywood are alternate history stories, right? Sci-fi, essentially. As such, their purpose partially rests in provoking the audience to think about how the world would be different based on one small change. We take what's there in the story and compare it to what we're living in. I'll admit that what I wrote isn't from this angle, but I of course did think about it. In that way the story isn't about "satisfying" some sort of desire but provoking reflection and thought. But hey, that's also what, like, most stories are about, so maybe it's not Tarantino's revisionism that you have a problem with but fiction in general?
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: IDrinkYourMilkshake on October 08, 2019, 12:48:48 PM
Is QT Hollywood's most optimistic director? Movies save the day again!

It's brilliant because it gives a happy ending to our heroes and to Sharon Tate.

As with Inglourious Basterds, I struggle with this line of thinking. In IB the Nazi high command was taken down in late 1944... by which time 90% of all the lives WW2 claimed were already lost. And the Nazi's got their asses handed to them 6 months later anyway. Hitler topped himself, and although it's a pity he didn't face real justice his demise in IB doesn't satisfy that itch for me... because it's only pretend. And then most of the rest of the high command got what they deserved at Nuremberg. 

As for ...Hollywood, it's all well and good us air breathers skipping out of the cinema chatting about how glad we were she didn't get all murdered, the reality is that she did get all murdered, along with 6 other people over two nights. Tarantino's cartoon 're-imaginings' of these events don't satisfy anything, so far as I can tell.

Both Inglourious Basterds and ...Hollywood are alternate history stories, right? Sci-fi, essentially. As such, their purpose partially rests in provoking the audience to think about how the world would be different based on one small change. We take what's there in the story and compare it to what we're living in. I'll admit that what I wrote isn't from this angle, but I of course did think about it. In that way the story isn't about "satisfying" some sort of desire but provoking reflection and thought. But hey, that's also what, like, most stories are about, so maybe it's not Tarantino's revisionism that you have a problem with but fiction in general?

In the case of these two movies it's Tarantino's revisionism I have a problem with. There's not a lot to reflect on or think about in Inglourious Basterds, so far as I can tell. Some cool scenes, sure, but chin-strokey whatifiness? Nah - The Nazi's lost anyway, it just happens 6 months earlier in IB.The Man in the High Castle is an alternate history story - it presents us with a hypothetical and develops its narrative from there. I think there's more to chew on in ...Hollywood, but not as an alternate history story.

I feel like Tarantino, during the writing process for both IB and OUATIH, started with the moments history became alternate - 8th August 1969 and whenever-it-was 1944 - and worked backwards. Neither film are alternate histories, nor do they ask any significant 'what ifs' about history... they're just very cool. Tarantino in a nutshell, innit?


Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Teproc on October 08, 2019, 01:00:36 PM
They're both fairy tales of a sort, that's the point of the uchronic elements. Wish fulfillment. I don't think Tarantino intends on much reflection with Inglourious Basterds (not of the "what if Hitler had been assassinated well into WW2" sort anyway)... maybe he does with Sharon Tate, in that he clearly makes us long for the promise of an interesting career, but more importantly he makes us feel for the victim, to emotionally sell the fairytale aspect of the ending.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: IDrinkYourMilkshake on October 09, 2019, 02:22:10 AM
uchronic

I don't know what this word means, and I can't figure out if it's a typo or not? My guess is that it's a proper deep cinephile word that i'm not aware of?...

maybe he does with Sharon Tate, in that he clearly makes us long for the promise of an interesting career, but more importantly he makes us feel for the victim, to emotionally sell the fairytale aspect of the ending.

ok, yes. I'll go for that.

Still not happy with IB, though.

Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Teproc on October 09, 2019, 04:40:40 AM
Uchronia means alternate history. Uchronic is the adjective associated with that noun, or at least I think it is, might be a neologism or a French-ism.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: IDrinkYourMilkshake on October 09, 2019, 06:06:28 PM
Uchronia means alternate history. Uchronic is the adjective associated with that noun, or at least I think it is, might be a neologism or a French-ism.

Ah! I looked for it on dictionary.com but no results.

Anyway, thanks!  :)
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Will on December 03, 2019, 03:59:43 PM
Tarantino’s insistence on violence exposes him as the most conservative auteurist today. The alternate reality still must satisfy our and his bloodlust of young, virginal hippie women. Kinda like how De Palma insisted in his documentary that people wouldn’t find rape and murder of men nearly as dramatically compelling as rape and murder of women. Tarantino truly lacks a feminist perspective. I think feminist critics will not be kind for him in the future in their re-evaluations. I also think there’s too many critics (mostly male) that give him the benefit of a doubt through armchair psychology of what he’s trying to say (when it really isn’t all that deep). He really does feel like one of those comedians complaining about PC culture to me.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: colonel_mexico on December 04, 2019, 12:15:00 AM
Tarantino’s insistence on violence exposes him as the most conservative auteurist today. The alternate reality still must satisfy our and his bloodlust of young, virginal hippie women. Kinda like how De Palma insisted in his documentary that people wouldn’t find rape and murder of men nearly as dramatically compelling as rape and murder of women. Tarantino truly lacks a feminist perspective. I think feminist critics will not be kind for him in the future in their re-evaluations. I also think there’s too many critics (mostly male) that give him the benefit of a doubt through armchair psychology of what he’s trying to say (when it really isn’t all that deep). He really does feel like one of those comedians complaining about PC culture to me.

Dave Chappelle is pretty damn funnythough
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: 1SO on December 05, 2019, 08:16:03 PM
Tarantino’s insistence on violence exposes him as the most conservative auteurist today.
Gave this some thought on a rewatch. I still say Clint Eastwood holds tightly to this title. I can't tell how much Tarantino buys into a conservative mindset. I still see him as the nerdy outcast who fell in with the cool kids. On one hand, you put him in an interview room with DiCaprio, Pitt and Robbie and he stands out as the uncool one. However, they come off as cool because of the way Tarantino has them filmed, the clothes they wear, the material they respond to, the presence they have. This may be the ultimate movie where the best moments are just these people hanging out.

To your comment, this particular time and place is populated by people whose conservative/liberal positions are on extreme ends. So I see our heroes being more conservative than we usually see in a modern movie, but it's in reaction to all them dangerous hippies. Cliff Booth even displays characteristics similar to the hippies and doesn't seem to mind their existence, but once they become a threat (which happens twice) he retreats to his more conservative nature. By contrast, among the other stuntmen, he's the outsider who makes people nervous, much like the hippies do to Rick Dalton.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Will on December 10, 2019, 06:40:54 PM
I honestly keep thinking back to Armond White's and Melissa Tamminga's takes on the film (below). Armond White notes that this is his only good movie primarily because so much of it is left "undigested". But that lack of digestion reveals Tarantino to be conservative in so many ways (as former regular Melissa notes). Personally, I don't see how anyone can claim how backwards GREEN BOOK is while simultaneously praising just how subversive this is. It feels nothing more than wish fulfillment back to a day and age where women (as Melissa notes) fit in the Madonna/Whore dichotomy and men (specifically straight white men) were the ones who decided their fates.

This is the part where someone claims "well, it's Once Upon a Time which denotes a fairytale like story so it can be reductive of gender norms" but out of all of the possible scenarios, this is the one Tarantino chooses? In that way, I agree with Armond White and K. Austin Collins and many others that this is Tarantino at his most naked, but is that truly worthy of praise when the creation feels not out of line with Trumpian politics? The fact of the matter is that a great deal of the critical population is straight white men and their adoring reviews have exposed them of overlooking certain sociological implications. I wish I could call out a few of them but I think it would land on deaf ears. Is there anything that would wake them?

TL;DR - Roger Ebert called Don Siegel's DIRTY HARRY fascist then proceeded to give it a positive review. Huh?

ARMOND
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/tarantinos-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-is-his-best-film/

MELISSA
https://seattlescreenscene.com/2019/08/20/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-quentin-tarantino-2019-2/
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: 1SO on December 10, 2019, 09:26:15 PM
I like the part where they destroy the hippies.


(*sarcasm*)


But seriously, I'm agreeing this is a conservative film, more for the way it uses nostalgia to look back fondly on a more conservative time (as Melissa writes) then for any amount of digestion, which is a connection I don't make.


When I saw The Hateful Eight, I hung in there until the scene where we see the former owners of the haberdashery get killed. These were kind, likable people and Tarantino gave them gruesome deaths that bothered me far more than that female assistant in Jurassic World everyone gets upset about. It put the film on a path of nihilism and grand guignol theater, but it got me thinking QT doesn't know a more responsible way of portraying death. This is why I was so apprehensive of what we all initially thought this film was headed towards. He's simply the wrong man for the job. However, we're treated to evil hippies that move like the possessed beings of Evil Dead, attacking our "heroes" who are more than capable of handling themselves. In fact, the tone allows them to unleash their sadistic side, something hinted at in the brief flashback to Cliff Booth on the boat with his wife and the scene at the ranch. You can argue it goes too far here, and I wouldn't argue against that opinion, but compared to Hateful Eight I appreciated having bad people behaving in a more menacing manner.

Now I wonder if the climax would bother me more if I hadn't seen Hateful Eight. I think it would.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Junior on December 10, 2019, 09:50:34 PM
I don't need a movie to share my political values for me to get something out of watching it, so its conservatism (a charge I won't argue against) doesn't really mean much to me. I still do think it's doing something more complicated than you seem to be giving it credit for in its portrayal of Tate, but I think I've already explained that here. What's interesting is that there was another similarly written female role in a movie by a big auteur this year and that one seems to be seen in a better light than this one does. Perhaps it is Scorsese's record of writing more compelling women than Tarantino's record of the same, but the fact that there is a difference is pretty interesting, I think.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Will on December 11, 2019, 05:20:06 PM

When I saw The Hateful Eight, I hung in there until the scene where we see the former owners of the haberdashery get killed. These were kind, likable people and Tarantino gave them gruesome deaths that bothered me far more than that female assistant in Jurassic World everyone gets upset about. It put the film on a path of nihilism and grand guignol theater, but it got me thinking QT doesn't know a more responsible way of portraying death. This is why I was so apprehensive of what we all initially thought this film was headed towards. He's simply the wrong man for the job. However, we're treated to evil hippies that move like the possessed beings of Evil Dead, attacking our "heroes" who are more than capable of handling themselves. In fact, the tone allows them to unleash their sadistic side, something hinted at in the brief flashback to Cliff Booth on the boat with his wife and the scene at the ranch. You can argue it goes too far here, and I wouldn't argue against that opinion, but compared to Hateful Eight I appreciated having bad people behaving in a more menacing manner.


No one gets out alive in THE HATEFUL EIGHT. That's the main reason why I am more favorable to it than ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD where the dormant desire appears to be prolonging the "innocence" of 1969 through the reaffirmation of white male supremacy.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Will on December 11, 2019, 05:29:08 PM
I don't need a movie to share my political values for me to get something out of watching it, so its conservatism (a charge I won't argue against) doesn't really mean much to me. I still do think it's doing something more complicated than you seem to be giving it credit for in its portrayal of Tate, but I think I've already explained that here. What's interesting is that there was another similarly written female role in a movie by a big auteur this year and that one seems to be seen in a better light than this one does. Perhaps it is Scorsese's record of writing more compelling women than Tarantino's record of the same, but the fact that there is a difference is pretty interesting, I think.

Similar how? Similar in how they're underwritten? That's a fair point, but I'd argue both serve radically different purposes. Sharon Tate's womanhood is central to the plot of ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD whereas Peggy's womanhood is not. Sharon Tate presents the Madonna, the fair maiden who must be saved from the Whores (seriously, read Melissa's piece, I am just summarizing it). She is presented as the male idea of the ideal woman with her only "flaw" being that she snores.

Peggy's womanhood, on the other hand, is presented as incidental. Her narrative purpose is that of an audience surrogate. She's horrified by Frank's violent tendencies, creeped out by Russ, and in awe of Hoffa. She is our guide throughout the film. Could she use better characterization? Absolutely, but I don't think her characterization is as sexist as the one for Sharon Tate.

This is all backed up by the fact that Peggy had a difficult relationship with her father. Sharon, by comparison, has a pretty detailed backstory that is all erased in exchange for a very reductive characterization. We never get to know her because she's not a character, but a symbol for conservative aims while Peggy operates as a symbol for an objective view of the men within the story.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: 1SO on December 11, 2019, 07:26:00 PM
the dormant desire appears to be prolonging the "innocence" of 1969 through the reaffirmation of white male supremacy.

For me it's that moment when you grow up to the point where your rowdy boy friends can't be as much a part of your life anymore. The film hits me in the heart when they return from Italy and Rick and Cliff understand their lives are now on different paths and they can't just hang out with beer and pizza like they used to. The finale is part of the last night of their bromance, and they go out in a big, rowdy way.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: 1SO on December 11, 2019, 07:29:39 PM
Similar how? Similar in how they're underwritten?
Similar in how there's been a fuss made over the number of lines of dialogue they're given when the performance is all about their presence in the room and what they're saying without words.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Junior on December 11, 2019, 11:03:33 PM
Yeah, that. I've read Melissa's essay, too, and found it to be a compelling reading even though I found the film to be doing more with and for the Tate character than she ultimately does.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: philip918 on December 12, 2019, 01:28:16 PM
Finally saw this and nice to see a good discussion here.

Re: the violence against the women at the end. I found the head smashing gratuitous in a stupid and aggravating way (much like the final shootout in Django), but overall the extreme violence perpetrated by Cliff and his dog on the Manson Family members felt earned and cathartic. Tarantino relies on viewers having some familiarity with the murder of Sharon Tate. I've been working on a documentary series about the Manson Family the last few months, so I'm now more than familiar with the people and events involved.
Tarantino's finale is a direct response to the real life violence Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, and Patricia Krenwinkle inflicted on Sharon Tate and her friends. Steven Parent was shot three times and stabbed. Jay Sebring was shot and then stabbed seven times. Voytek Frykowski was shot, his head smashed in with the butt of the gun, and stabbed 51 times. Abigail Folger was stabbed 29 times. Sharon Tate, who was eight and a half months pregnant, was stabbed 16 times. Go ahead and Google the crime scene photographs.
The fairy tale ending worked for me. The final shot of Sharon, Abigail, and Voytek emerging from the house to join Jay and Rick like the happy ghosts of an impossible future was incredibly touching.

Somehow the ending really worked for me while the rest of the film didn't. I found it easy to watch, and some scenes were very good, but nothing particularly grabbed me. The Bruce Lee scene was cringe-inducingly bad.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: oldkid on December 14, 2019, 11:29:38 PM
I deeply enjoyed my time with this one.  The callbacks to 60s Los Angeles that I can barely recall, the slow pacing, the moviestardom, the forever building up of tension to a conclusion that didn’t come.  I walked away from the film feeling pumped and dirty.  The sexism, the conservative politics, the redemptive violence— okay, they are always in his films.  But in the era of Trump, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  The only blatant immoral act I can see is the flamethrower at the end, because I couldn’t see why he thought he needed to kill this person, falling bloody in his pool.  But there is a lot there that seems to call out control of a radical element and callbacks to when ‘Merica was “great and free” if you were male and white... and you know.

This is a work of genius for the wrong side.  I am happy/unhappy to have seen it.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: St. Martin the Bald on April 16, 2020, 02:39:49 PM
I gotta say, this gets better every time I re-watch it.
His mythical Hollywood, full of movie theaters and landmark restaurants is just the place I would want to inhabit.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: Corndog on April 16, 2020, 02:58:02 PM
I agree. I was slightly positive the first time I saw it, but when I rewatched it a second time I really bought into it a lot more.
Title: Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
Post by: etdoesgood on April 17, 2020, 12:39:37 AM
Saw this thread came back up, read oldkid's take, and mostly agree with it. I've seen it twice - theater and home.

I deeply enjoyed my time with this one.  The callbacks to 60s Los Angeles that I can barely recall, the slow pacing, the moviestardom, the forever building up of tension to a conclusion that didn’t come.  I walked away from the film feeling pumped and dirty.  The sexism, the conservative politics, the redemptive violence— okay, they are always in his films.  But in the era of Trump, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  The only blatant immoral act I can see is the flamethrower at the end, because I couldn’t see why he thought he needed to kill this person, falling bloody in his pool.  But there is a lot there that seems to call out control of a radical element and callbacks to when ‘Merica was “great and free” if you were male and white... and you know.

This is a work of genius for the wrong side.  I am happy/unhappy to have seen it.

I still have it rated as Good, and there it will probably stay. The ending doesn't bother me because Manson; I'm more on the side that this film is conservative in a way that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, definitely see a MAGA connections, intentionally or not.