Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time In Hollywood (Post Release)
#71
Cliff’s wife’s death could have been a nod to Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood, and provided a sense why his career was not going down the same path as Hal Needham.
PSN Handle: chetripley80
Reply
#72
(07-27-2019, 05:00 PM)chet ripley Wrote: Cliff’s wife’s death could have been a nod to Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood

The placement of it happening on a boat made me think of Natalie Wood immediately.
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply
#73
Having Rebecca Gayheart on the boat with Pitt seemed like an odd choice for a scene that may or may not involve a wrongful death.
Reply
#74
oohhhhh THAT was Gayheart's role in the movie!

I saw her name in the end credits and though "I don't remember her!"
Reply
#75
I really don’t know how you can like movies or Tarantino in general and not like this. Leo and Pitt are so, so good. Cliff plays like a hyper confident Lebowski and Leo again proves that funny Leo is the best Leo.

The Lancer stuff is so good. It’s pure Budd Boetticher. Olyphant makes a great Eastwood, but an even better Randolph Scott.

Best deep cut reference: Leo’s Lancer character being named after A Talking Cat?!?! auteur David DeCoteau.
Reply
#76
Just the idea that there is a huge summer movie in 2019 that spends a good 40 minutes dealing with the production of a Lancer is mind-blowing. It’s self-indulgent but I’m glad he indulged.
Reply
#77
(07-27-2019, 05:55 PM)Nooj Wrote: oohhhhh THAT was Gayheart's role in the movie!

I saw her name in the end credits and though "I don't remember her!"

I felt this way about a lot of the credits.
Reply
#78
(07-27-2019, 05:55 PM)atomtastic Wrote: I really don’t know how you can like movies or Tarantino in general. 

how could I????
Reply
#79
I miss Sally Menke.
Reply
#80
(07-27-2019, 06:12 PM)Nooj Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 05:55 PM)atomtastic Wrote: I really don’t know how you can like movies or Tarantino in general. 

how could I????
Haha, oops!

I love that Tarantino's follow to the nihilism of Hateful Eight is essentially "what if everyone was nice to each other and invented each other to dinner at their house and everyone was happy Smile Smile"
Reply
#81
meanwhile, terrible murderers are brutally destroyed with extremely stoned prejudice
Reply
#82
Chekhov's dog, Chekov's dog food can, Chekov's acid cigarette and Chekov's flamethrower all in one scene!
Reply
#83
So, gf took me to see this for my b-day and great movie....but, possibly one of, if not THE, most satisfying endings that I've ever seen. I've done lots of reading over lots of different things. I just like to know history and important cultural shit. The gf and I had a LOOONG Sharon Tate/Manson/Helter Skelter/Beatles' White Album discussion last night so she wouldn't be completely lost. And boy am I glad we did. Even though she's 26 days older than me (makes a huge difference, I know) she just generally knows nothing about any of this type of thing.

I love how Pitt was kind of a reverse of Riggs in Lethal Weapon. Super dangerous dude. Living in an RV. Dead wife. Yet, NOT....getting too old for this shit, apparently.

What a blast this was..
Reply
#84
Just got back, this movie is so fucking awesome. I'm not sure what the other tarantino was going on about in the other thread about this Tarantino movie.
Reply
#85
the other tarantino?
Reply
#86
(07-27-2019, 02:14 PM)mike j Wrote: Given how limited viewing options were in the late 60s, do you really think people were that specific? Digital is what ushered in the whole "Shot on film!" and "I saw it in 35mm!"

You could go down to Sears or some place and buy movies in 16mm, I'm sure getting a 35mm print was most costly and hard to come by.
Reply
#87
I hate when things are most costly.
Reply
#88
(07-27-2019, 08:28 PM)Nooj Wrote: the other tarantino?

huntertarantino, who sounds like he really did not like this movie.

This makes me not want Tarantino to quit anytime soon even more. This feels like the most sure handed movie he's ever made.

The dog stuff in this is some of the best dog stuff I've ever seen in a movie.

Most, more, whatever.
Reply
#89
I love when they put dog stuff in movies.
Reply
#90
I mean....it was no TOP DOG. But it was good dog stuff..
Reply
#91
You'd have to be an asshole not to love dog stuff.
Reply
#92
Remember the dog stuff scene in Van Wilder?
Reply
#93
Remember the dog stuff in that one movie with the girl that told Woodward and Bernstein about the Dick stuff?
Reply
#94
Not into dog stuff, PETA, who in a bid for attention seem to be mad the dog was even in the movie.
Reply
#95
While I did enjoy this movie, it is my less favorite QT movie. Thanks to the reviews I knew this was a hang out movie, but I guess I would have liked more of a story. While the dialogue was by no means bad, this is the first QT movie where I didn't hear anything quotable. That said, I was happy to see Dalton find a way to stay relevant. I thought Dicarpio's best scene was when he got his shit together to deliver a good villainesses scene. Of course coming out of the pool house with the flame thrower was a close second.

  I wasn't surprised by how the third act played, but it was still a good action scene. I was happy that Maya Hawke's character changed her mind about going on a killing spree. That opinion is based sorely on how awesome she was in Stranger Things 3.
I've got good news and I've got bad news. The bad news is I've lost my way. The good news is I'm way ahead of schedule!
Reply
#96
This was a collection of amazing scenes, and I'm still rolling around in my head what I think about how it all comes together as a movie, but the 160 minutes flew by for me.

(07-27-2019, 10:15 PM)Chaz Rock City Wrote: While the dialogue was by no means bad, this is the first QT movie where I didn't hear anything quotable.
I liked this more than you, but this struck me as well.
Reply
#97
(07-27-2019, 02:07 PM)fatherdude Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 01:46 PM)WilderHackman Wrote: Manson not getting killed was also a bit of a letdown for me. Tarantino implies that Manson never would have gained his infamy if Rick and Cliff were real people, but if you're gonna rewrite history to kill Hitler, you can definitely kill off Manson too. Or, at the very least, have Cliff tell the cops about Spahn ranch while he's on the stretcher.


Perhaps Tarantino thought that marginalizing Manson was ultimately the most effective way to give him the finger.
I think there's something to Leo's Lancer character being what we would expect Manson (right down to makeup and wardrobe) to be in a Tarantino film, this wild eyed, charismatic mad man, while the actual Manson is just some hapless weirdo.
Reply
#98
(07-27-2019, 11:48 PM)atomtastic Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 02:07 PM)fatherdude Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 01:46 PM)WilderHackman Wrote: Manson not getting killed was also a bit of a letdown for me. Tarantino implies that Manson never would have gained his infamy if Rick and Cliff were real people, but if you're gonna rewrite history to kill Hitler, you can definitely kill off Manson too. Or, at the very least, have Cliff tell the cops about Spahn ranch while he's on the stretcher.


Perhaps Tarantino thought that marginalizing Manson was ultimately the most effective way to give him the finger.
I think there's something to Leo's Lancer character being what we would expect Manson (right down to makeup and wardrobe) to be in a Tarantino film, this wild eyed, charismatic mad man, while the actual Manson is just some hapless weirdo.

Yeah I remember Rob Zombie in some interview saying that bad guys are always more captivating and that is what he was doing with the Devil's Rejects. His example was watching clips of Manson being interviewed. I really never understood that. I don't find him interesting and he certainly couldn't talk me into getting him a glass of water much less murdering people.
“I call upon you to stop this musical now,” she said to the board. “You tear a community apart if you don’t.” -Prachi Ruina                                                            
Reply
#99
(07-27-2019, 07:11 AM)mr. stockslivevan Wrote: I don’t know shit about Manson other than he’s a manipulator that killed Polanski’s preggo wife via followers.

The Manson murders, in themselves, were horrific and a perfect storm of the strange tensions that had building across the 60's, but it was the fallout that cemented their legacy in the historical record. Hindsight historical analysis often points to the subsequent trial of 1970-71, one of the first major sensationalized news events network broadcasted across 'Merica, in contributing to the savage rejection of the freewheelin' rancour of the 60's by the so-called Silent Generation, with images of Manson's girls-next-doors parading outside the trial extolling Charlie -- for mom and pop status quo across flyover and elsewhere, it crystallized that 'something' had gone very 'wrong' and thus we see the increased turn to conservatism in the early and mid 70's, and the seeds sown of conservatism in the 80's up into today. Of course there were (many) other factors*, but the celebrity killings, the sensationalized aspect to it, the corruption of the girls-next-door by the dirty hippie with a swastika etched on his brow -- it became a sort of locus for all the confusion and chaos percolating across half a decade and the repulsion it generated probably contributed to Nixon's grip on power and re-election.

*Civil Rights, Southern Strategy, dropout/drug culture and its devastating fallout, left wing terrorism via the Weathermen et al, the increasing economic strain of the Great Society coupled to Vietnam, counterculture material filtering into the mainstream including conspiracy theory, the alliance of evangelicals to the Birch regressives, and so  on -- this was a crazy time and it resulted, in part, in all the great cinema we got during the auteur period from Easy Rider to Heaven's Gate. Manson became one of the touchstones, indeed, the "end of the dream" of the Aquarius ideal, the nightmare lurking beneath. The fact that he was highly intelligent and incredibly damaged also augmented the carnival-esque atmosphere of the trial and the mass reaction.
Reply
(07-27-2019, 11:39 PM)Mangy Wrote: This was a collection of amazing scenes, and I'm still rolling around in my head what I think about how it all comes together as a movie, but the 160 minutes flew by for me.

(07-27-2019, 10:15 PM)Chaz Rock City Wrote: While the dialogue was by no means bad, this is the first QT movie where I didn't hear anything quotable.
I liked this more than you, but this struck me as well.

(07-27-2019, 11:48 PM)atomtastic Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 02:07 PM)fatherdude Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 01:46 PM)WilderHackman Wrote: Manson not getting killed was also a bit of a letdown for me. Tarantino implies that Manson never would have gained his infamy if Rick and Cliff were real people, but if you're gonna rewrite history to kill Hitler, you can definitely kill off Manson too. Or, at the very least, have Cliff tell the cops about Spahn ranch while he's on the stretcher.


Perhaps Tarantino thought that marginalizing Manson was ultimately the most effective way to give him the finger.
I think there's something to Leo's Lancer character being what we would expect Manson (right down to makeup and wardrobe) to be in a Tarantino film, this wild eyed, charismatic mad man, while the actual Manson is just some hapless weirdo.

I liked "What's your name?"

"I am the Devil. And I'm here to do the Devils work."

".... Naaaah it was something dumber than that."

I really like the reading of Caleb being what audiences wanted or expected out of a Manson role in a Tarintino film. A big part of why I love the ending so much is that it absolutely stubbornly refuses to give the Manson family even a shred of mythologizing or even giving them a true sense of danger about them. They're just dumb, awful assholes that we as the audience and a culture get to collectively dismiss as the shit stains that they are. It's a giant middle finger to them in every way and it was the best possible way to handle that element.
Reply
(07-28-2019, 01:52 AM)freeman Wrote: A big part of why I love the ending so much is that it absolutely stubbornly refuses to give the Manson family even a shred of mythologizing or even giving them a true sense of danger about them. They're just dumb, awful assholes that we as the audience and a culture get to collectively dismiss as the shit stains that they are. It's a giant middle finger to them in every way and it was the best possible way to handle that element.

I ultimately agree with this, though I also can understand the opinion (which I've seen floating around out there) that Tarantino comes close to overdoing just how silly and played-for-laughs he makes the Family members. In reality, these people committed brutal murders of the ugliest sort, so while the characterization worked for me, I wouldn't begrudge anybody for feeling it was at least a debatable choice.
If we can dream it, then we can do it.
Reply
(07-28-2019, 01:52 AM)freeman Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 11:39 PM)Mangy Wrote: This was a collection of amazing scenes, and I'm still rolling around in my head what I think about how it all comes together as a movie, but the 160 minutes flew by for me.

(07-27-2019, 10:15 PM)Chaz Rock City Wrote: While the dialogue was by no means bad, this is the first QT movie where I didn't hear anything quotable.
I liked this more than you, but this struck me as well.

(07-27-2019, 11:48 PM)atomtastic Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 02:07 PM)fatherdude Wrote:
(07-27-2019, 01:46 PM)WilderHackman Wrote: Manson not getting killed was also a bit of a letdown for me. Tarantino implies that Manson never would have gained his infamy if Rick and Cliff were real people, but if you're gonna rewrite history to kill Hitler, you can definitely kill off Manson too. Or, at the very least, have Cliff tell the cops about Spahn ranch while he's on the stretcher.


Perhaps Tarantino thought that marginalizing Manson was ultimately the most effective way to give him the finger.
I think there's something to Leo's Lancer character being what we would expect Manson (right down to makeup and wardrobe) to be in a Tarantino film, this wild eyed, charismatic mad man, while the actual Manson is just some hapless weirdo.

I liked "What's your name?"

"I am the Devil.  And I'm here to do the Devils work."

".... Naaaah it was something dumber than that."

I really like the reading of Caleb being what audiences wanted or expected out of a Manson role in a Tarintino film.  A big part of why I love the ending so much is that it absolutely stubbornly refuses to give the Manson family even a shred of mythologizing or even giving them a true sense of danger about them.  They're just dumb, awful assholes that we as the audience and a culture get to collectively dismiss as the shit stains that they are.  It's a giant middle finger to them in every way and it was the best possible way to handle that element.

Which is what the actual Tex Watson said at the real murders. So Tarantino's utter contempt for the Family definitely shines through there w/ Pitt's mocking response.
Reply
True, but at least it landed on the correct end of that choice.

I was talking to Nooj about this and I can't quite put my finger on what movie that one girls screaming frantic cartoonish performance/appearance reminded me of? Suspiria? Evil Dead?
Reply
(07-27-2019, 11:48 PM)atomtastic Wrote: I think there's something to Leo's Lancer character being what we would expect Manson (right down to makeup and wardrobe) to be in a Tarantino film, this wild eyed, charismatic mad man, while the actual Manson is just some hapless weirdo.

That's a good observation. The Lancer director (who I've since learned was meant to be the real actor/director, Sam Wanamaker, who went on to found the modern Globe Theater) is pushing for Rick's villain to both evoke hippies and be a "sexy evil Hamlet"... Pop culture's drive to order narratives and find meaning in the random and senseless has often built Manson up in a similar way. We want to think our monsters are Count fucking Dracula when they simply aren't that impressive.

(07-28-2019, 01:59 AM)Belloq87 Wrote: I also can understand the opinion (which I've seen floating around out there) that Tarantino comes close to overdoing just how silly and played-for-laughs he makes the Family members.  In reality, these people committed brutal murders of the ugliest sort, so while the characterization worked for me, I wouldn't begrudge anybody for feeling it was at least a debatable choice.

So I personally don't see a problem with going the opposite direction and showing how small these fuckers were. It doesn't diminish their evil-- if anything it makes the whole thing more frightening to me.

(Reminds me, on considering "senseless" violence, that it was Vincent Bugliosi, making the case against Manson, who soundly rejected the idea of a motiveless crime... Manson and his followers had their reasons. They were petty, stupid reasons.)

I mean, if I were ever to be murdered, I should hope it'd be by somebody who could at least manage basic hygiene.
Our sanitariums are full of men who think they're Napoleon... Or God.
Reply
The screaming frantic cartoonish performance reminded me of Sally Hardesty in the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre by way of Daryl Hannah's "death" scene in Kill Bill vol 2/Blade Runner..
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)