Jump to content

Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - 60s/Manson movie


Recommended Posts

I went to a screening and Q&A last week and it was fascinating. QT said he hated one of the performances and had to cut that person more or less out of the film. I reckon he was talking about the guy who plays Charles Manson but he didn't say. He also said he essentially just wanted to write a love letter to his childhood. That the film is Hollywood as it existed in his mind as a kid. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kerraig UK said:

I went to a screening and Q&A last week and it was fascinating. QT said he hated one of the performances and had to cut that person more or less out of the film. I reckon he was talking about the guy who plays Charles Manson but he didn't say. He also said he essentially just wanted to write a love letter to his childhood. That the film is Hollywood as it existed in his mind as a kid. 

 

What the guy QT hired because he thought he was so good as Manson in Mindhunter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, K said:

There were a lot of fairly well-known actors who are hardly in the film, like Damian Lewis, Lena Dunham and Luke Perry, so it could have been quite a few people. 

Not sure I agree with that. Damian Lewis was there to serve one purpose. Emile Hirsch is absent from the entire film but then there at the pivotal end scene. I think its likely Manson, but my second guess isn't Steve McQueen who rocks one scene. Its Jay Sebring, who is strongly introduced then strangely absent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monkeyboy said:

Watched this tonight, and was expecting the worst when the scene with the little girl started, given what’s been said by a few posters in here. But it doesn’t even drag, like, at all.

The thing about expectation. Thinking it will drag, it wont. Thinking it wont, it probably will.

Its a good scene. Its defo too long. Its defo badly placed

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Chadruharazzeb said:

After two hours I turned to my wife and said "I've still got no idea what this film is about." and yet I still enjoyed every minute of it, especially Pitt who was cool AF.


It really isn't about anything. It's a very selfish movie by QT. He just wanted to create a tableau of his love of Hollywood in the late 60's (when he was about 8).

I loved living inside his head for 2 hours, but it's unquestionably a flawed, baggy movie.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

This movie was a major let down. Love DiCaprio and Pitt, but this was Tarantinos weakest movie. I've been on a Tarantino marathon over the past days and this is without a doubt the worst movie he has made. Nothing really happened in this movie. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stevie said:

This movie was a major let down. Love DiCaprio and Pitt, but this was Tarantinos weakest movie. I've been on a Tarantino marathon over the past days and this is without a doubt the worst movie he has made. Nothing really happened in this movie. 

 

Erm, death proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched this for the first time last night and thought it was QT's best film for ages. Loved the way that he restrained his trademark surrealism in a way that made it more unsettling and spooky. The humour was subtler too and landed better as a result. It seemed far more disciplined than the likes of Inglourious or Hateful which started well but lost their way and became clumsy. 

I think the key to it was that it was more character driven than usual. Most of QT's recent stuff has just been a bunch of entertaining caricatures acting out a zany plot that ultimately becomes unsatisfying. Jack Dalton is a really fulsome relatable character (brilliantly realised by DiCaprio) so even when not much was happening in pure plot terms a great deal was being shown about Jack. Thought Pitt's Cliff Booth had depth too, with enough glimpses of his dark side to make him interesting. Their relationship was expertly portrayed -- getting two megastars to show that kind of symbiosis is no mean feat.

Obviously it all looked and sounded fantastic too.

Really want to see it again, which is not something I have felt about a QT film for a long time.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Death Proof is terrible. I get what he was trying to do in it, but it was such a poor premise there was no saving it from that point. If you’re doing a pastiche of a genre you should just pick the best bits surely? Being stingy with the action because low-budget films could only afford one car chase in the seventies seems like such a miserly decision. Especially as it probably cost tens of millions to make.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Hateful Eight is especially terrible. Its a great set up with a great cast and beautifully shot, but boy is it undercooked and unsatisfying. And not half as clever as it thinks it is. There are no surprises or clever rug pulls. Everyone is exactly who you think they are.

Here I go with my updated list. Its a crazy journey from stone cold classics to films which just don't work at all. 

 

1. Reservoir Dogs - His only directorial masterpiece. 

2. True Romance - The second best film of one of his scripts. 

3. Pulp Fiction - As iconic as it gets. 

4. Inglorious Bastards - This is so so nearly his masterpiece, but loses a point because the titular characters are totally redundant in their own movie.

5. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood - I love it. It's super self indulgent and drawn out and amounts to nothing, but that stands for all his movies except Dogs. 

6. From Dusk Til Dawn - A Riot. Even if the lead characters are unlikeable shitheads. I like that is has the balls to kill everyone off. 
7. Jackie Brown - I don't think this is as grown up and clever as most people do. all the best stuff is from the book. But at least it's an actual movie with a beginning, middle and end. 

8. Natural Born Killers - A nasty mess. But filled to the brim with 90's carnage.
9. Kill Bill - Again, I find this baggy and unsatisfying. I also had to watch it over 100 times so maybe its flaws have driven me nuts. 
10. Django Unchained - Half of a brilliant film. But QT doesn't know when to quit. 

11. Four Rooms - Probably the best segment in a pretty shitty film. 

12. Kill Bill Vol 2 - An unsatisfying mess. 

13. The Hateful Eight - Fundamentally misunderstands its own structure and genre to deliver a story with zero nuance or surprises. 

14. Death Proof - SOOOooooooo boring.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree pretty much entirely with that list, except I’d swap From Dusk Til Dawn with Django Unchained, and would probably move Once Upon a Time a bit further down. I loved the insane ahistorical bloodbath ending in Inglorious Bastards as it fit perfectly with the rest of the film, but didn’t think it worked in OUATIH. I’d love to see the film it would have fit with, but it wasn’t this one. 
 

Man, he really lost it between 1997 and 2009, didn’t he?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Death Proof was better than this.

 

I thought this was pretty junk overall. Probably his worst film :(

 

Fantastic performances from Di Caprio and Pitt, and some wonderful moments throughout, but it meanders along to the finale, and doesn’t really go anywhere.

 

I was a little bummed out when he announced he would do ten films and then quit, but now I couldn’t care less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DirkCrisis said:

I'd take True Romance out of the list. He has repeatedly said it is Tony Scott's film not his.

 

Personally I hate the stuff about German pre-war cinema in Inglorious Basterds. It feels so niche and self-congratulatory for the sake of it.

 

He wrote the the Dennis Hopper your grandma scene. So it stays. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, K said:

 

Man, he really lost it between 1997 and 2009, didn’t he?

 

He was a victim of his own success. Reservoir is cribbed from other people's work, True Romance they changed the ending and Pulp Fiction was half Roger Avary. 

 

When given free reign he doesn't know when to quit. He desperately needs a script and picture editor to tell him to turn it in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kerraig UK said:

 

He was a victim of his own success. Reservoir is cribbed from other people's work, True Romance they changed the ending and Pulp Fiction was half Roger Avary. 

 

When given free reign he doesn't know when to quit. He desperately needs a script and picture editor to tell him to turn it in.

 

Yeah. I was surprised to read that Tarantino's bit in Sleep With Me, where he goes off on that Top Gun gay subtext monologue, was in fact Roger Avary's party piece that he stole outright. He seemed to have been living off that legendary script they wrote together for some time, and needed a bit of time to build up more material.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.