Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time In Hollywood (Post Release)
It was probably a mix of all those things.
Reply
Continuity question:

Cliff takes the dog for a walk down the private road. The Mansonites' car passes him on its way up.

Rick chews out the Mansonites for idling loudly in front of his house. They back the car down to the main road and argue about what to do next.

Three Mansonites walk up the private road towards Rick's house while the fourth member abandons them and takes the car.

Cliff returns from walking the dog, coming back along the same route he left, somehow not encountering the Mansonites yet getting to Rick's house first.

Something must have gotten cut somewhere, yes?
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
The geography of that scene seemed a little wonky to me as well. There was at least two points where I was sure Pitt was gonna cross paths with them on the street and it kept feeling weird that it wasn't happening..
Reply
(07-27-2019, 10:15 PM)Chaz Rock City Wrote: 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.

The person Hawke plays, Linda Kasabian, while present at both murders, did not actively participate in either.  In fact, she tried to stop the Tate murders by telling the others someone was coming to the house, and actually prevented a third murder Manson had planned by deliberately knocking on the wrong apartment door.  She was the key witness against the Family in the eventual trial, being the only Family member to express any guilt or remorse for what happened.
Just this guy, you know?
Reply
(07-28-2019, 05:54 AM)fraid uh noman Wrote: The geography of that scene seemed a little wonky to me as well. There was at least two points where I was sure Pitt was gonna cross paths with them on the street and it kept feeling weird that it wasn't happening..

It sticks out because the geography throughout the rest of the film (especially the Spahn Ranch sequence) is very well-communicated.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
(07-28-2019, 05:21 AM)hammerhead Wrote: Continuity question:

Cliff takes the dog for a walk down the private road. The Mansonites' car passes him on its way up.

Rick chews out the Mansonites for idling loudly in front of his house. They back the car down to the main road and argue about what to do next.

Three Mansonites walk up the private road towards Rick's house while the fourth member abandons them and takes the car.

Cliff returns from walking the dog, coming back along the same route he left, somehow not encountering the Mansonites yet getting to Rick's house first.

Something must have gotten cut somewhere, yes?

When he got his acid cig at the start of the movie he was talking about walking around in the woods. I just figured he came back a different way. Although at first I thought he'd shown up after they'd already been to Rick's house and he and his wife were going to be found dead by Cliff.

(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.

Yeah, them, and by proxy Manson himself are made to look like fools in that ending. The Manson Family getting it in the end was probably the funniest moment in the whole movie, it was basically nonstop laughter in the theatre I saw it in for however long that scene goes.
Reply
(07-28-2019, 05:54 AM)fraid uh noman Wrote: The geography of that scene seemed a little wonky to me as well. There was at least two points where I was sure Pitt was gonna cross paths with them on the street and it kept feeling weird that it wasn't happening..
The first shot of that sequence was distracting: Pitt walks outside with his dog, goes down the street, and it appears their car passes right by him, but they didn't seem to notice or recognize him. That distracted me a bit, too.
Reply
It takes them a while to recognize who each other is inside a lite house.
Reply
It's not about recognition, it's about zero contact until the house between Pitt and the killers when it seemed like they should've passed one another at some point. As it is now (until I see it again) it feels like one party slipped through a wormhole..
Reply
Like I said before, earlier in the movie Cliff talked about wanting to get stoned and wonder around in the woods out behind Rick's house. Cliff could have just come from a different direction than he left. I'm pretty sure the scene is designed that way because Tarantino doesn't want you to know if they're already in Rick's house or not when Cliff comes in.

They did pass each other when he left Rick's place; but it's night, Cliff looks different, and they only met once six months earlier. It's not all that crazy they both just passed each other.
Reply
Again....I get all that. I'm not trying to say that any of that is wrong. I'm mostly certain HOW it played out. It's just that in this particular instance it is lacking the clarity that Tarantino usually excels at..
Reply
I don't think he wants it to be clear. Because we go from them talking about changing their plans in the car too Cliff coming back to Rick's, I think he wants you to be wondering if maybe they're already in the house. There's a moment where Cliff is getting food all fucked up, (and before that when he was coming in) where, at least I was watching it, I was wondering if they were maybe already in the house. If you have Rick also pass them on his way back you can't have that moment of tension where you're wondering if Cliff is walking into something horrible that's already happened.
Reply
I figured Cliff probably passed the car on his walk, but neither group recognized each other so why waste screen time on it?
Just this guy, you know?
Reply
(07-28-2019, 02:48 PM)Richard Dickson Wrote: I figured Cliff probably passed the car on his walk, but neither group recognized each other so why waste screen time on it?
Because it would seem like they would recognize the Brad Pitt-looking stuntman who beat the shit out of their friend a few months earlier?

Just thought it looked a little awkward. No biggie.
Reply
I figured the alternate history angle would kick in when one of The Manson Girl recognizes Rick's car from Cliff's visit to the ranch, but I guess not!
Reply
Yeah, they didn't seem to recognize Cliff, but they did recognize Rick Dalton, er, "Jake Cahill."
Reply
I've seen some people comparing it to Mulholland Drive, but thinking it over the Lynch film this most reminds me of is Fire Walk with Me (a film Tarantino notoriously hated), "in particularly" (™, Quentin Tarantino) in the 3rd acts. Tarantino's Tate is very Laura Palmer-y. Of course, Lynch thesis for all of Twin Peaks is that Laura Palmer can't be saved and you have to make peace with that, while Tarantino's is "Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice if you could?".
Reply
I've seen that comparison as well, and I don't really get the similarities to Lynch at all.

I'm also mixed on Tate as an avatar for all that is innocent and good, even though I think that's what Tarantino was going for. If anything, for me, Robbie was in the film even less than I expected going in, and I wasn't expecting that much. I also think the theory about Dalton going through the gates Dent6084 described above is what Tarantino is going for, but I'm not sure it succeeds.

I've also thought about this movie non-stop since last night and will probably watch it again 5 more times.
Reply
I guess I get it in the sense that are both vaguely suspensey / comedic vignettes set in Los Angeles, but I don't see much else.
Reply
Lynch and Tarantino both use pop iconography in warped ways, but to radically different ends. (although come to think of it those ends are usually completely horrifying so maybe they're more similar than I think)

This movie kinda reminds me of a lot of other movies, yet none of them at the same time, even more than the usual Tarantino film.
Reply
There's the whole David Foster Wallace essay about how Tarantino is just Lynch made mainstream, which I never really understood. Then again, Lynch had Tim Roth and Jennifer Jason Leigh redo the Pumpkin / Honey Bunny scene in The Return, so I guess he thought Wallace was onto something.
Reply
Re: driveway continuity. All they had to do was show a stoned Cliff walking the dog back up the driveway past the parked car while the Mansonites are still arguing. The line about "going through the woods" sounds like a quick fix since we don't get any visual indication of it.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
(07-28-2019, 03:47 PM)Mangy Wrote: I've seen that comparison as well, and I don't really get the similarities to Lynch at all.

I'm also mixed on Tate as an avatar for all that is innocent and good, even though I think that's what Tarantino was going for. If anything, for me, Robbie was in the film even less than I expected going in, and I wasn't expecting that much.  I also think the theory about Dalton going through the gates Dent6084 described above is what Tarantino is going for, but I'm not sure it succeeds.

I've also thought about this movie non-stop since last night and will probably watch it again 5 more times.

In terms of that theory, it also ties into the Great Gatsby reference w/ DiCaprio being confronted by a gun-wielding assailant in his pool - both times an avatar of wealth and glitz and dreams is faced w/ the possibility that it will play out the way it does "canonically"/in real life, and then it swerves as far away from that tragedy as possible. There's a fair amount stewing under the surface here where it feels like Tarantino's looking back at this gimmick/device and ruminating on it. I'm not sure I've fully cracked where he ultimately lands, but it's definitely more melancholy than, say, the unalloyed triumphalism of IB's final moments.
Reply
After turning Hitler's face into a plate of spaghetti and giving Manson and his family the biggest middle finger imaginable by completely marginalizing him and them in a three hour movie that's about everything BUT them....I'm now convinced that Tarantino and his revisionist history MUST direct the inevitable movie version of the whole Trump debacle so it will end with Mueller (or whoever) throwing 45 screaming down into a core reactor shaft..
Reply
Right. There's really an element to these movies that's not just contemptuous of these historical villains, but also of the decades of mythologizing them in pop culture. With the movies in IB and DiCaprio's performance in Lancer here (down to even throwing the girl around, similar to how Manson would abuse his "girls"), he's paralleling how pop culture views these people and turns them into "evil Hamlet" with his view that they shouldn't be built up but instead treated as utter trash.
Reply
(07-26-2019, 08:35 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Best in-joke (that I caught): Bounty Law is brought to us by "Running W Productions."

Not as much of a Tarantino nut as some I guess, need to have this joke explained to me

Thought the movie was very good but would not place it in QTs top 5. Surprised he didn't use Clu Gulager more- in some ways the living embodiment of so much of what Tarantino was going for. Put him in the fake TV western. Have him play Spahn. Anything would have been better than the 8 seconds or so we got of him. 

Also, we need a documentary on Italian Plissken/Mad Max ripoff flicks narrated by Kurt Russell. His cheery pronunciation of "operazione" was so great.
Reply
Nothing quite like watching a brand new Tarantino film unfold for the very first time. Whatever I might think I’m getting, the dude always manages to catch me off balance and completely obliterate my expectations.

Basic familiarity of the Manson murders provided a baseline of tension throughout, and knowing her real life fate made some of Sharon Tate’s scenes unbearably heartbreaking (the theater sequence especially; Robbie is so good in this). Seeing that third act snap into focus was such a joy. I never would have guessed that Tarantino could deliver such a sentimental fairy tale of a film, right on the heels of HATEFUL EIGHT no less - one of the meanest, bleakest movies of the last decade.

Still digesting it, but I loved every shaggy, self-indulgent minute of this.

Also, more evidence QT would put together one hell of a horror flick: the entirety of Cliff’s Visit to Spahn Ranch. Unbelievably tense.
Reply
That's what I liked so much about it. I acknowledge it's a flawed movie in theory, but given the subject matter I was SOOO expecting a dark nihilistic hateful violent movie, especially coming right off of Hateful Eight. That put me in the PERFECT mind set to fall for his magic trick. Leaving the theater having come in expecting dark and getting a light breezy feel good summer hang out is more or less exactly what I needed right now.
Reply
It’s a downright sweet movie, which was unexpected for sure. I have to admit, once word came of Cannes that the ending could be spoiled, it seemed self-evident what it would have to be. The surprise was how that tied the film together thematically. It’s a film about coping with aging, with losing the zeitgeist and above all, coming to terms with irrelevance. That ending is saying, essentially, but what if this one time, we didn’t have to lose it all? It’s so oddly winsome. And the fact that it’s all so pointedly fantasy gives the film a real melancholy.

Loved it!
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
(07-28-2019, 05:28 PM)fraid uh noman Wrote: After turning Hitler's face into a plate of spaghetti and giving Manson and his family the biggest middle finger imaginable by completely marginalizing him and them in a three hour movie that's about everything BUT them....I'm now convinced that Tarantino and his revisionist history MUST direct the inevitable movie version of the whole Trump debacle so it will end with Mueller (or whoever) throwing 45 screaming down into a core reactor shaft..


I'd rather Trump bite it either like Stephen in Django, the Adderall rambling on as he lays dying in a rat-infested White House.

Better yet, he goes like Hitler in the first draft of Basterds, sitting at the premiere of Dinesh D'Souza's latest POS and literally getting blown out of his seat by the bomb under it.
"PREDATOR 2 feels like it was penned by convicts as part of a correctional facility's creative writing program, and that's what I love about it." - Moltisanti
Reply
(07-28-2019, 08:09 PM)Adam_72 Wrote:
(07-26-2019, 08:35 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Best in-joke (that I caught): Bounty Law is brought to us by "Running W Productions."

Not as much of a Tarantino nut as some I guess, need to have this joke explained to me

It's not a QT reference. The "running W" was an arrangement of wire cables employed to trip horses for action scenes in Westerns and war movies. It was notoriously inhumane and usually resulted in the horses' death. It's illegal in the US now .
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
Ewwwww.
Reply
I knew of the method just not what it was called. Which movie was it that actually blew up a horse and the footage is in the movie? Was that Heaven's Gate? I feel like that's it. Either that or a Peckinpah movie..
Reply
Interesting. I knew something about the nasty history of horse falls and whatnot, but never heard that term before.

One thing this movie kind of touched upon but I would have loved to see Tarantino go even deeper into: the sad lives of stars from that era, after people stopped watching their stuff, and before it became possible to come back from the dead by shilling shoddy kitchen products via infomercial, doing reverse mortgage commercials, getting a spot on some reality TV show for ex celebs willing to humiliate themselves for food, etc.

I imagine an alternate version where Rick never meets Sebring, is forced to sell his place and move back home like he talked about, gets divorced, the money eventually runs out, he jumps from one odd job to another and supplements his meager income by selling signed photos on the convention circuit, ends up living in the spare room of a fan Gordon Scott style, dies alone.
Reply
That's depressing as fuck..
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)