Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[Frodo]

My two cents. I start right off and say that i'm probably biased in my view of the film. As a southern Californian growing up in LA county in which the Tate tragedy is a big part of LA's history, as someone who's a Bruce Lee fan, and someone who's a fan of 60s music and culture, history etc, I was probably predisposed to enjoy this film.

I'll admit I really soaked up this film and enjoyed being transported to LA about 10 years before I was born in LA. I'll be honest and say it really isn't for everyone and it isn't a typical QT film in alot of ways.

Spoiler: SPOILER

The ending will be controversial for sure, much like Danny's Boyle's Yesterday offers an equally controversial alternate history. Those who've seen Yesterday will know what I mean.

Robbie is enchanting as usual as Sharon Tate. I'm glad that Tate is treated with reverence and respect in this film.

 

[TheVileOne]

I'm very ambivalent about the final act. My understanding is Tarantino sought approval from Sharon Tate's family. If they gave him approval, there's not much I can really say against it.

The story isn't really about the Manson Family. They are almost tertiary background characters. It's really about Rick Dalton and his bromance with Cliff Booth and Dalton's declining career with 1969 Hollywood as the backdrop.

 

[flickchick85]

One little thing I really liked was that

Spoiler

they didn't superimpose Robbie as Sharon into the scenes of her movie. Keeping the real Sharon in there just felt...right.

 

[Silva Surferin]

What a refreshing movie to watch at a time so annoyingly obsessed with feminism and female empowerment. Quentin just says "I don't care." Here's a movie about two guys set in a time when being a guy wasn't a problem.

It cracks me up how annoyed the feminazi critics are with the climax.

Spoiler

They're more annoyed by women getting their skulls crushed by Pitt instead of the fact that those women came into the house looking to kill innocents.

Its ironic because I sat through FOUR trailers with the same general sentiment that men are bad and women are good before the movie started. Then we get a brutal reversal in Pitt's extensive code of honor.

Overall, I loved OUATIH. Not his best, but better than H8 & DU.

 

[flickchick85]

I did a double take.

 

[MovieSlave]

I honestly wasn’t sure how I was feeling about this movie until the 3rd act, but then he went all

Spoiler

Inglorious Bastards with it

and I was on board.

Just got out of the theatre and

Spoiler

I was wondering how he was going to end it. I was surprised he went as you said "all Inglorious Bastards with it" and loved it.

 

[Frodo]

Just got out of the theatre and

Spoiler

I was wondering how he was going to end it. I was surprised he went as you said "all Inglorious Bastards with it" and loved it.

Yeah, me too.

 

[Frodo]

One little thing I really liked was that

Spoiler

they didn't superimpose Robbie as Sharon into the scenes of her movie. Keeping the real Sharon in there just felt...right.

I liked it too.

 

[samsnee]

Maybe it’s just me but the ending seemed obvious after they made a big deal about not spoiling it at Cannes.

 

[Schlosser85]

Personally I think using that kind of thing in a movie and doing something like that with it is kind of icky.

 

[MovieSlave]

Personally I think using that kind of thing in a movie and doing something like that with it is kind of icky.

On one hand it kind of is but off the top of my head I can't think of a solid ending that avoids showing or really mentioning Tate's murder.

 

[The Shape]

Going to see this tonight finally. It's virtually sold out at most of the theater showings near me.

 

[Black Narcissus]

I don't want to see KB3. Eh.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I loved this film. It was a time machine back to a different period in Hollywood history and everybody was so fantastic. Pitt and decaprio together are a match made in heaven. I also thought the ending was brilliant haha.

One thing I haven't mentioned is that Margot Robbie's conveys Sharon Tate's sense of innocence so damn well. It hangs over the movie in almost a haunting way.

For me, Pitt stole the show!

 

[Silva Surferin]

I loved this film. It was a time machine back to a different period in Hollywood history and everybody was so fantastic. Pitt and decaprio together are a match made in heaven. I also thought the ending was brilliant haha.

One thing I haven't mentioned is that Margot Robbie's conveys Sharon Tate's sense of innocence so damn well. It hangs over the movie in almost a haunting way.

For me, Pitt stole the show!

Yep, Pitt ate the movie. Sorry, Leo.

 

[thangaran]

The trailer had a quick flash of it

Spoiler

ow was Margot Robbie’s fight scene with the actor who plays Bruce Lee in the movie

 

[The Chris]

I just saw this in 35mm and I adored it so darn much. I just love that Quentin follows the beat to his own drum and has his own set of rules, and refuses to compromise for anyone, whether it be the violence or language or story structure. It was so great to see something and have no idea where it's going, only to be in awe of where he takes it. And Leo and Brad or both so great in this too. My god.

 

[Steyin]

This seemed pretty tame for Tarantino. Pitt was great, but overall this film was just ok.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Bruce Lee

Some ppl don't like how he was portrayed in this, but a few different friends and folks who did work with Lee bts, have all stated that he had a huge ego and came off extremely cocky in certain situations.

 

[MOVIELORD101]

Ok, WTF?

‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ Billboard Vandalized to Blast ‘Pedowood’

This Sabo ******* singled out this movie WHY? I just saw it this afternoon. Polanski's not even really in the movie as a character (it's a one-scene cameo at best, same with Manson; Sharon Tate's more showed and even then she doesn't do much), and even then they're side characters AT BEST. The majority of the plot focuses on Leo and Brad Pit's characters and their friendship. WTF does this Epstein guy have to do with anything? Hell, the Weinsteins weren't even INVOLVED in this; Quentin made the movie RIGHT AFTER he severed ties with them. It just seems like this "artist" is just out to scream at topics by using popular movies that have NOTHING to do with them as examples.

 

[Schlosser85]

He’s taking advantage of and trivializing an issue as serious as sexual abuse to try to gain attention for himself, by using it as a prop and a plaything and making a joke out of it.

 

[terry78]

That's the world we live in.

 

[flickchick85]

Um, the vast majority of critics liked this movie and recommended it, FYI.

 

[writer0327]

Interesting that people say Pitt stole the show. I think Leo did the superior acting job, his best acting in several movies. That scene with the little girl was absolutely mesmerizing. However I loved the Cliff Booth character much more than the Rick Dalton character and I think that's what everyone is reacting to. Cliff is what a friend should be. Both of those guys were great when on screen, either solo or together, and Brad had more riveting scenes than Leo, specifically the Spahn Ranch scene and the final scene. I think that's why folks say he stole the show. But IMO Leo crushed his role.

Margot Robbie's usage was unfortunate. I get what QT was going for....Sharon Tate was definitely the heart of the film, but she is more of a symbol representing the last of the great Golden Era of Hollywood, than an actual character. She wasn't really given much to do and we don't get to really know Sharon Tate at all.

Yeah but Brad and Leo pretty much made this movie. We need another Leo-Brad bros movie.

8/10

 

[writer0327]

Feminazis and PC nuts (some call themselves film critics) hate this movie for a long list of reasons. Been reading reviews since yesterday and its a pretty hilarious list:

-How dare QT hire alleged female assaulter Emile Hirsch?
-How dare QT relegate Margot Robbie to a small supporting role? "Robbie and all women should be the stars(!!!)"
-How dare QT depict alleged sexual predator Roman Polanski in anything but a negative light?
-How dare QT make Margaret Qualley (24) portray a hippie character who's sexually interested in the stuntman played by Brad Pitt (56)? "That's disgusting (!!!)."
-How dare QT shoot gruesome violence inflicted upon women by a man? "It doesn't matter that

Spoiler

the women are Manson followers trying to kill innocents

). Thats not the point."
-How dare QT glorify male chauvinism in the 60s? "That was a disgusting time in America where men ran the industry. It should be forgotten and erased."
-How dare QT objectify Sharon Tate by having Steve McQueen narrate her love life and express his desire to have her? "Men shouldn't talk about women's choices EVER."
-How dare QT suggest Brad Pitt's character

Spoiler

killed his wife

and play it for laughs? "A

Spoiler

woman's death

should never be humorous."
-How dare QT even continue to make movies after endangering Uma Thurman's life on the set of Kill Bill and spitting on her face during a scene? "He should not be allowed to direct anything in today's evolved world."

I feel like we're gonna get to a point in American film culture where women will not legally be allowed to be shown in a negative or sexualized light and unless they're the protagonists the films simply won't get greenlit.

Critics are actually upset that Pitt and Leo are the stars of the movie because they're masculine White "he-men" who fight, drink, curse and kill. Just let that sink in.

The world is upside down.

I haven't read many of these criticisms, they all sound absolutely moronic, but.....

Why would anyone care one lick what other people think about a movie that they enjoy? Especially idiotic complaints like those above. I think this whole outrage and complain culture could be solved by everyone just shrugging their shoulders and moving on with their day. But maybe that's just me....