Author Topic: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood  (Read 570 times)

Fugee

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1335
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #10 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.

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #11 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. 
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

IDrinkYourMilkshake

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
  • a souless automaton who can't feel any emotion
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #12 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.
"What should have been an enjoyable 90 minutes of nubile, high-school flesh meeting a frenzy of blood-caked blades, becomes instead an exploitational and complex parable of the conflicting demands of agrarianism and artistry. I voted a miss."

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 28117
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #13 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?
Check out my blog of many topics

Im not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!

IDrinkYourMilkshake

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
  • a souless automaton who can't feel any emotion
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #14 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?


« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 12:56:10 PM by IDrinkYourMilkshake »
"What should have been an enjoyable 90 minutes of nubile, high-school flesh meeting a frenzy of blood-caked blades, becomes instead an exploitational and complex parable of the conflicting demands of agrarianism and artistry. I voted a miss."

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2874
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #15 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.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

IDrinkYourMilkshake

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
  • a souless automaton who can't feel any emotion
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #16 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.

"What should have been an enjoyable 90 minutes of nubile, high-school flesh meeting a frenzy of blood-caked blades, becomes instead an exploitational and complex parable of the conflicting demands of agrarianism and artistry. I voted a miss."

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2874
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #17 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.
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

IDrinkYourMilkshake

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
  • a souless automaton who can't feel any emotion
Re: Once Upon A Time In Hollywood
« Reply #18 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!  :)
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 06:08:06 PM by IDrinkYourMilkshake »
"What should have been an enjoyable 90 minutes of nubile, high-school flesh meeting a frenzy of blood-caked blades, becomes instead an exploitational and complex parable of the conflicting demands of agrarianism and artistry. I voted a miss."