Once Upon a Time in Holllywood - New Film by Quentin Tarantino, July 2019

[lame ass security]

I've been reading some reviews on IMDb and they've been stellar.  But you have to be wary of early reviews on IMDb because sometimes they're from people associated with the production.

[appetite4illusions]

13 hours ago, The Holographic Universe said:

El Royale didn’t have Manson in it did it? I thought it was just a cult leader played by Thor.

It was meant to be Manson and the Manson family.

The fact that the murders are mentioned and one of the girls is shown in a flashback on the lawn of the Polanski home, standing above a woman with a bloody knife.

The difference is that Drew Goddard cloaked Thor in a different name than Charles Manson, to make it less controversial and Tarantino chose to explicitly go with Manson, but then pulled his punch by refusing to show Manson do anything.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On 7/26/2019 at 8:57 PM, The Holographic Universe said:

El Royale didn’t have Manson in it did it? I thought it was just a cult leader played by Thor.

I saw El Royal on cable. No mention of Manson at all, but this movie was pretty good. Crazy too.

So is the new QT movie worth seeing?

Anything way off from reality?

On 7/27/2019 at 10:31 AM, appetite4illusions said:

It was meant to be Manson and the Manson family.

The fact that the murders are mentioned and one of the girls is shown in a flashback on the lawn of the Polanski home, standing above a woman with a bloody knife.

The difference is that Drew Goddard cloaked Thor in a different name than Charles Manson, to make it less controversial and Tarantino chose to explicitly go with Manson, but then pulled his punch by refusing to show Manson do anything.

Oh was that Manson. I thought it was based on Manson. didn't realize the cult guy was Manson. My bad. lol

On 7/26/2019 at 9:56 PM, lame ass security said:

I've been reading some reviews on IMDb and they've been stellar.  But you have to be wary of early reviews on IMDb because sometimes they're from people associated with the production.

Well, I hope to see it but if not, dvd. I have loved every QT movie made and have seen them all, so i figure I will love this one too.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

Shannon Lee tweeted that she's not happy about how her late dad, Bruce Lee, is shown in this movie. I'm surprised at QT for telling lies about someone who can't defend himself.  I know however Bruce Lee is portrayed is total bullshit.

Guess I will save myself the $10 an wait for this movie to come on cable.

[Len Cnut]

13 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Shannon Lee tweeted that she's not happy about how her late dad, Bruce Lee, is shown in this movie. I'm surprised at QT for telling lies about someone who can't defend himself.  I know however Bruce Lee is portrayed is total bullshit.

Guess I will save myself the $10 an wait for this movie to come on cable.

Yeah, I read that too.  Then again, its a fictionalisation and you can't really...stop writers from writing what they want.  I'm a massive Bruce Lee fan, like huge but I didn't expect an accurate portrayal either.  As I say I've not seen the film so I don't know how he's portrayed and whether it is a mockery. 

[appetite4illusions]

The Bruce Lee scene is easily one of the best in the movie and the actor who plays Bruce, is very aware he is in a Tarantino film.

There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a scene stealing moment because of how colorfully Bruce is played.

Maybe it’s just splitting hairs, but you always have people come out of the woodwork when characters are based on real life people (celebrities , especially) who claim “you didn’t get my dad, my mom, my uncle, my pet pony Justice, etc..right...and I want some money for that!”

Does it reflect negatively on Bruce? Not really. It presents him as braggadocio and since he has no reason to believe anybody can really challenge him, that belief is justified.

I thought it was a great scene and it wouldn’t have been if Bruce just remained “zen” and passive.

Now, Tex Watson might find the movie uncomfortable, but his digs have been meager for quite a long time. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by appetite4illusions

[Len Cnut]

3 hours ago, appetite4illusions said:

The Bruce Lee scene is easily one of the best in the movie and the actor who plays Bruce, is very aware he is in a Tarantino film.

There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a scene stealing moment because of how colorfully Bruce is played.

Maybe it’s just splitting hairs, but you always have people come out of the woodwork when characters are based on real life people (celebrities , especially) who claim “you didn’t get my dad, my mom, my uncle, my pet pony Justice, etc..right...and I want some money for that!”

Does it reflect negatively on Bruce? Not really. It presents him as braggadocio and since he has no reason to believe anybody can really challenge him, that belief is justified.

I thought it was a great scene and it wouldn’t have been if Bruce just remained “zen” and passive.

Now, Tex Watson might find the movie uncomfortable, but his digs have been meager for quite a long time. 

Quite apart from that Bruce wasn't zen or passive, he even enormously cocky in real life so I've read.  From the little clips I've seen, I think I posted this earlier in the thread, he does the characterisation justice, in terms of Bruce and his mannerisms, as for the rest I can't really say as I ain't seen it.

[DieselDaisy]

He was also a bit of a lady's man. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

10 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Yeah, I read that too.  Then again, its a fictionalisation and you can't really...stop writers from writing what they want.  I'm a massive Bruce Lee fan, like huge but I didn't expect an accurate portrayal either.  As I say I've not seen the film so I don't know how he's portrayed and whether it is a mockery. 

Yeah, true. My mom has been a huge Bruce Lee fan forever. She remembers when he passed away. So sad. I also watched all his movies and interviews with her and believe him to be a good man. He was the best there ever was with his martial arts and I don't think anyone comes near him even today. I guess having a different opinion makes for a different point of view.

Is Brad Pitt's character named Tex? Just wondering.

14 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

He was also a bit of a lady's man. 

Well, there have been rumors, but nothing ever confirmed. I know he loved Linda, his wife and his kids and what he did, so anything was between him and his wife. But I do hope he didn't cheat on her. He always said they were like Ying and yang.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

4 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Quite apart from that Bruce wasn't zen or passive, he even enormously cocky in real life so I've read.  From the little clips I've seen, I think I posted this earlier in the thread, he does the characterisation justice, in terms of Bruce and his mannerisms, as for the rest I can't really say as I ain't seen it.

True about Bruce being cocky and very proud of his martial arts powers. He was always being challenged by other people who wanted to best him, but never did. I guess you need to be very confident with the talents that Bruce Lee had. The man invented his own form of martial arts and never wanted to wear any form of padding when he fought. He said if I have these talents, it's not a crime to use them, so yeah, that part was true. From what I've seen from the previews he seems to have Bruce's mannerisms down. Anyway, as long as the movie is as good as Quentin's other movies, I guess I can over look this 

7 hours ago, appetite4illusions said:

The Bruce Lee scene is easily one of the best in the movie and the actor who plays Bruce, is very aware he is in a Tarantino film.

There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s a scene stealing moment because of how colorfully Bruce is played.

Maybe it’s just splitting hairs, but you always have people come out of the woodwork when characters are based on real life people (celebrities , especially) who claim “you didn’t get my dad, my mom, my uncle, my pet pony Justice, etc..right...and I want some money for that!”

Does it reflect negatively on Bruce? Not really. It presents him as braggadocio and since he has no reason to believe anybody can really challenge him, that belief is justified.

I thought it was a great scene and it wouldn’t have been if Bruce just remained “zen” and passive.

Now, Tex Watson might find the movie uncomfortable, but his digs have been meager for quite a long time. 

Does Brad Pitt play Tex or some other actor? If you don't want to say it, that's cool. Yeah, Tex was the worst and I'm sure he knows it.

[appetite4illusions]

7 hours ago, Len Cnut said:

Quite apart from that Bruce wasn't zen or passive, he even enormously cocky in real life so I've read.  From the little clips I've seen, I think I posted this earlier in the thread, he does the characterisation justice, in terms of Bruce and his mannerisms, as for the rest I can't really say as I ain't seen it.

I'll take you at that, because I don't know much about Bruce Lee. It just seems that if he didn't practice zen and if he wasn't humble, I don't understand what his daughter is complaining about. There's nothing in the Bruce Lee scene of the movie that reflects negatively on him other than the fact that he's braggadocios. 

 

3 hours ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Does Brad Pitt play Tex or some other actor? If you don't want to say it, that's cool. Yeah, Tex was the worst and I'm sure he knows it.

No. Manson and the Manson family are played by nobodies, to reinforce the idea that they were nobodies. 

[-W.A.R-]

I think its that families (particularly those with famous relatives) are overprotective when comes to a passed loved ones image.

I haven't seen the film yet though.

Edited August 1, 2019 by -W.A.R-

[Stiff Competition]

Just go watch a couple interviews with lee and youll see how cocky he is. The way moh portrayed him wasn't a huge exaggeration, he even got down the speech inflections and hand gestures he used while talking. The ironic thing is people want to base lee off the stoic, dominant characters he played while damning the way he is played as a character. On top of that, the overly PC crowd is just looking for a racist angle for their tirades. The scene is great.

as for him not showing Manson doing anything...that's because he didn't.

He made it very clear that Manson had control over the family and that they were doing his bidding, which is how it really happened. Plus the movie isn't about Manson and the family, it's about the hierarchy of Hollywood and aging actors struggling to find their way in a changing scene. The Manson family played a part in the changing of the times so they are included.

 

Ive seen it twice now and love it. I'm a huge QT fan and to me, Basterds will always be his masterpiece but this falls in the middle of his films for me around how I'd rank KILL BILL. 

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

On 8/1/2019 at 5:59 PM, appetite4illusions said:

I'll take you at that, because I don't know much about Bruce Lee. It just seems that if he didn't practice zen and if he wasn't humble, I don't understand what his daughter is complaining about. There's nothing in the Bruce Lee scene of the movie that reflects negatively on him other than the fact that he's braggadocios. 

 

No. Manson and the Manson family are played by nobodies, to reinforce the idea that they were nobodies. 

Okay yeah good. I've seen so many documentaries about Manson and his family and it makes me cringe everytime. So glad they all got what they deserved. I will never understand someone being talked into horrible acts of violence because a person who thinks he's a God tells you so? Yeah, I know drugs and sex, whatever. These people were just plain stupid and easy to manipulate.

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

1 hour ago, Stiff Competition said:

Just go watch a couple interviews with lee and youll see how cocky he is. The way moh portrayed him wasn't a huge exaggeration, he even got down the speech inflections and hand gestures he used while talking. The ironic thing is people want to base lee off the stoic, dominant characters he played while damning the way he is played as a character. On top of that, the overly PC crowd is just looking for a racist angle for their tirades. The scene is great.

as for him not showing Manson doing anything...that's because he didn't.

He made it very clear that Manson had control over the family and that they were doing his bidding, which is how it really happened. Plus the movie isn't about Manson and the family, it's about the hierarchy of Hollywood and aging actors struggling to find their way in a changing scene. The Manson family played a part in the changing of the times so they are included.

 

Ive seen it twice now and love it. I'm a huge QT fan and to me, Basterds will always be his masterpiece but this falls in the middle of his films for me around how I'd rank KILL BILL. 

Yeah, well Bruce Lee was the best and he knew it. But I honestly believe in his private life he was a good man. Everyone that knew him loved him. He was one of a kind. I guess you have to have an ego to do what Bruce did. I mean besides the marital arts thing, he wrote and directed movies too. The US was stupid not to see what a gem he was. Different times I guess. I'm just glad he got the recognition he deserved before he died. His legacy lives on.

Check out the Cinemax show called Warrior. It's a show based on Bruce's stories he wrote back in the 60's. It took Shannon a very long time to get it on air, but the show does Bruce's ideas justice. 

Losing his son Brandon was another terrible loss.

[appetite4illusions]

20 hours ago, Stiff Competition said:

Just go watch a couple interviews with lee and youll see how cocky he is. The way moh portrayed him wasn't a huge exaggeration, he even got down the speech inflections and hand gestures he used while talking. The ironic thing is people want to base lee off the stoic, dominant characters he played while damning the way he is played as a character. On top of that, the overly PC crowd is just looking for a racist angle for their tirades. The scene is great.

as for him not showing Manson doing anything...that's because he didn't.

He made it very clear that Manson had control over the family and that they were doing his bidding, which is how it really happened. Plus the movie isn't about Manson and the family, it's about the hierarchy of Hollywood and aging actors struggling to find their way in a changing scene. The Manson family played a part in the changing of the times so they are included.

 

Ive seen it twice now and love it. I'm a huge QT fan and to me, Basterds will always be his masterpiece but this falls in the middle of his films for me around how I'd rank KILL BILL. 

It seems to me that Quentin Tarantino wanted it both ways.

He wanted the shadow of Manson to loom over the movie but in no way did he want to use him as a character and be accused of raising him to the level of cult hero. He wanted us to use our imagination as far as the guy's involvement. I didn't need to see Charlie raise a kinfe (because he did - he did in fact kill - in a separate incident) but I wanted to see the influence of his character on the other characters. As it is, he is just someone whose first name is dropped a few times.

If Quentin really wanted to juxtapose the old guard of Hollywood versus the Slippies, he needed to give Manson more dimension - any dimension. There are so many young people who went to see this movie who don't know about the Family and come up with questions by the time the last scene rolls around.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good movie - it was - it could have been legendary, though. On my part, there was way too much about old Hollywood and we only skimmed the surface of the underbelly. That's where it came up short for me. It was like we had a brief peak into the window of what was going on the other side of town - but it wasn't enough.

I guess Quentin can't be blamed because very early on when people were reporting this was a "Manson" film, he got out in front of the rumors and claimed Charlie's part was so small it was almost inconsequential. He wasn't lying, so kudos to him for shooting straight.

I look at it like this though; if you have the balls to viciously kill Adolf Hitler to great audience acclaim, where do those balls go when you need Charles Manson to say a few lines?

[Stiff Competition]

2 hours ago, appetite4illusions said:

It seems to me that Quentin Tarantino wanted it both ways.

He wanted the shadow of Manson to loom over the movie but in no way did he want to use him as a character and be accused of raising him to the level of cult hero. He wanted us to use our imagination as far as the guy's involvement. I didn't need to see Charlie raise a kinfe (because he did - he did in fact kill - in a separate incident) but I wanted to see the influence of his character on the other characters. As it is, he is just someone whose first name is dropped a few times.

If Quentin really wanted to juxtapose the old guard of Hollywood versus the Slippies, he needed to give Manson more dimension - any dimension. There are so many young people who went to see this movie who don't know about the Family and come up with questions by the time the last scene rolls around.

I'm not saying it wasn't a good movie - it was - it could have been legendary, though. On my part, there was way too much about old Hollywood and we only skimmed the surface of the underbelly. That's where it came up short for me. It was like we had a brief peak into the window of what was going on the other side of town - but it wasn't enough.

I guess Quentin can't be blamed because very early on when people were reporting this was a "Manson" film, he got out in front of the rumors and claimed Charlie's part was so small it was almost inconsequential. He wasn't lying, so kudos to him for shooting straight.

I look at it like this though; if you have the balls to viciously kill Adolf Hitler to great audience acclaim, where do those balls go when you need Charles Manson to say a few lines?

I don't think it's a lack of balls of involving manson. Quentin doesn't shy away from controversy. Where he may have mis-stepped and I am realizing it more and more as I hear people talk about the film is what you mentioned...not everyone knows who manson is or what the family did. I've lived my whole love 10 minutes away from Spahn Ranch and my parents and grandparents lived in the valley in the 60s/70s so for me, it's something that has always been known about and talked about. On that note, it works great for me and seeing all the LA scenes is a gas as well. One friend I went with this past weekend had no idea of the history so while he dug the movie, it didn't hit as hard for him. The ending especially absolutely relies on you knowing what happened that night.

 

and just curious, who did he kill? Any of the known killings, he was generally absent or left before the actual murders took place (including hinman and the labiancas). The only one that is known that he may have possibly been directly involved with is Shorty Shea and even that would still be a group effort that his followers probably carried out with him present.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Stiff Competition

[Whiskey Rose]

Saw this with @Fitha_whiskey on the weekend..he loved it right away but it took me a while to warm up...I was thinking, is there a plot to this thing? lol. 

But what I mostly got out of it was it was more of a story about how fake Hollywood is, and the value we still give to it. Like the main "leading man" guy, lived as a fake tough guy on set, and outside of that, was a mess. And the "secondary" character, not given as much value in Hollywood, was the true hero and tough guy in real life, did not live his life and place his value in a fake setting. So that was a cool juxtaposition to me. Which lends to the title of the movie itself, "once upon a time".. everything is just a story. Also following that, the final explosion of violence which is a fantasy sequence of what most people probably wished would have happened that day..again, going back to the once upon a time title...very cool. At least that's what I got out of it! 

[Megaguns2891]

Watched it last night, no real storyline.... Quentin has become too self indulgent...   it was good.... don't get me wrong, just seemed to have a lot of bullshit scenes for no real reason other than the studio granted him millions of dollars.

just get to the point. 

It really is a movie that didn't need to be made, parading Margot Robbie around for no reason seemed pointless other than one and other blokes enjoyment.

Charles Manson was in literally one scene.

the ending was a cool take on an alternate reality.

Tarantino last film, the hateful 8 was better but could have been edited down by an hour easily.

- Tarantino has become a Hollywood brat who will make what he wants, no matter how self indulgent.

credit to Leo and brad for some fine acting... Leo really had some hilarious scenes, as did brad. But They we're a glimmer in an otherwise snooze fest.

[ZoSoRose]

I liked the setting and acting a ton

The movie itself was very dissapointing

[JONEZY]

Haven't seen the movie yet. Seen enough to know I love the Mama and the Papas song "12:30 Young girls are coming to the canyon".

[Len Cnut]

I really enjoyed that.  Don't read this shit btw is spoilers bother you but yeah that was a really good movie.  Of his later work Death Proof is my favourite movie but this one just beat it.  Yeah, I don't think I'd be exaggerating if I said, for me personally, in terms of my enjoyment, this is my favourite of his later work.  Perhaps cuz its made around characters and ideas and places that I know a fair bit about i.e. The Manson Family, Steve McQueen, Bruce Lee etc etc 

It just seems like a much more mature piece of writing, it deals with a character (Rick Dalton), who in the wrong hands could be quite sad and tragic but its made to be funny but without ever being at the characters expense too much.  Brad Pitt and Leo were fuckin' great in it, the references are like...relevant instead of having the feeling of like, Tarantino dialogue where its like you can almost hear Tarantino saying the shit.  He mentions shit like the club London Fog, Jay Sebrings friendship with Jim Morrison, in its own way, storytelling-wise its actually quite subtle whilst kinda messing with exploitation cinema too.

As for the Bruce Lee thing, yeah, I can see why Shannon might respond as she did, they did kinda make him out to be a blowhard cunt that was full of hot air but more than that, judging here by audience responses etc at the characterization he was kinda getting laughs (saw this in a pretty crowded cinema) but not even dialogue or anything like that but rather all the Bruce Lee-isms like the 'wataaaah' and all that shit.  But hey, fuck it, it's a work of fiction, the man was what he was and no movie can change that.

Steve McQueen though, COME ON!!!!!!!  Is that what Steve McQueen was, this sort forlorn hippie substitute teacher looking motherfucker pining over the fact that Sebring and Polanski got to bang Sharon Tate but he didn't, give me a fuckin' break

I really liked the whole bounty law thing, thats fuckin' Wanted Dead or Alive!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUROZEmC1WQ

Thats like my favourite fuckin' TV show ever!  Josh Randal and his fuckin' mares leg rifle!  Again, this is probably why I loved this movie so much, its dealing with a lot of shit that I like or familiar shit, though familiar is probably the wrong word cuz every Tarantino movie does that.  I just think it was really well made.  The thing benefits I think from not having an abundance of cool characters in it because that just makes Tarantinos dialogue go all fuckin' hokey, which isn't the case here, they don't come off like a sounding board for clever phrases that Tarantino has dreamed up.

The whole fuckin' thing of like, going off to do Italian movies, thats a thing that all dude heroes did, Charles Bronson, Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, they all had that little thing where they had to go a little farther afield to get some level of acclaim, its the only film where Tarantinos film geekiness/references blended well into the work (well, perhaps not only, thats unfair) because its kinda dealing with that world.

Overall though I like the treatment of the Manson family, its reasonably well researched, you've got the favourite names like Squeaky Fromme, Catherine Share, Tex, Clem Grogan etc etc they're not characters that are particularly well treated.  I also like the fuckin' way it ends, with that little intercom exchange with Sharon Tate at the end and its like...wow, y'know, the way fate turns out, thats all it took on that fateful night, on any fateful night of history, it just takes a little something, a change of heart, a change of...fuckin' anything, any little thing just to trigger a chain of events different from what transpired.  It kinda makes you go 'awww fuck, if only the Mansons had got a flat tyre that day or...I dunno, someone  had a change of heart or something, big or small.

But yeah, all in all (and relatively speaking) a really mature effort by Tarantino, well written, well directed, certainly didn't drag for me, I thought it was brilliant.  I'd put it above Django (good not great), Hateful Eight (brilliant idea but not dynamic enough, goes on a bit), Kill Bill (again, goes on a bit and WAAAAY too reference heavy and lacking in substance), Inglorious (just didn't much do it for me).

[DieselDaisy]

You really like Death Proof over Inglorious Bastards?

The two westerns were poor. 

[Len Cnut]

15 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

You really like Death Proof over Inglorious Bastards?

The two westerns were poor. 

I should really watch Inglorious again, only saw it once, in the cinema, liked it and everything but like...I dunno, I could see a thousand other war movies in it, Death Proof was reasonably original, relative to a lot of Tarantinos other stuff.  Well paced too. 

As for the two westerns, I dunno, Hateful Eight was way too long for a film with a limited setting, when you have a movie like that you kind of have to have it streamlined etc, you can't really waffle as much and there is a fair bit of waffle in Hateful Eight but at the same time I think its among his better efforts.  Django was, again, way too fuckin' derivative, entertaining for a one time watch, or a couple of times maybe but not really an enduring film. 

I find that the Tarantino movies that endure the least, are his genre takes on films where I'd rather watch the originals.  Inglorious, shit, give me The Dirty Dozen etc any day, Kill Bill was kinda destroyed by the dialogue, repeating viewings are like an act of endurance and Django was overall kinda meh-ish.

[DieselDaisy]

Just now, Len Cnut said:

I should really watch Inglorious again, only saw it once, in the cinema, liked it and everything but like...I dunno, I could see a thousand other war movies in it, Death Proof was reasonably original, relative to a lot of Tarantinos other stuff.  Well paced too. 

As for the two westerns, I dunno, Hateful Eight was way too long for a film with a limited setting, when you have a movie like that you kind of have to have it streamlined etc, you can't really waffle as much and there is a fair bit of waffle in Hateful Eight but at the same time I think its among his better efforts.  Django was, again, way too fuckin' derivative, entertaining for a one time watch, or a couple of times maybe but not really an enduring film. 

I find that the Tarantino movies that endure the least, are his genre takes on films where I'd rather watch the originals.  Inglorious, shit, give me The Dirty Dozen etc any day, Kill Bill was kinda destroyed by the dialogue, repeating viewings are like an act of endurance and Django was overall kinda meh-ish.

Not exactly a ''war film'' in the traditional sense however.