Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood thread with spoilers

I wouldn't suggest best picture, although the cinematography WAS magnificent.

Leo gave a great performance as the TV cowboy, Brad Pitt was beautiful (supporting actor nod, perhaps) and Margot Robbie was mesmerizing as Tate, wasn't she? Although not enough range from her to earn a best actress nomination.

I was a little disappointed in the ending but the rest of the film made up for it. Loved seeing their take on the ranch, what a strange time it was.

It was odd, kind of boring. It took too long to get to the payoff at the end which was satisfying but ridiculous.

LOL...gee, there seems to be a lot of publicists on the threads drumming up support for this movie.

It was...ok. Waaaaaay too long and rambling at times. Gorgeous cinematography and sound design.

The movie felt very choppy. Probably would have worked better as an 8 episode Netflix show if Tarantino would be willing to work with a disciplined experienced teleplay writer. Which would never happen since he's a "genius".

Brad will win Best Actor.

I haven't seen it, but I just wanted to chime-in.

Loved it, including the ending.

Will watch it at home. Don't have the patience to sit through a Tarantino movie in a theater.

What makes the true story amazing is that she died, not that she lived. Who cares if a bunch of psycho hippies died?

It was hard to see much of a plot until the very end, which was a slog to get to. It should have been trimmed to the standard two hours. I agree with R3. It was like it rambled on.

Don’t wait on TV. Just saw it with big sound, on big screen at the Bruin in Westwood (big smile): most enjoyable QT since Pulp Fiction

Spoil Less Bump

How the fuck is Brad supporting??? This is a classic two-lead film. Both should be pushed for lead.

That said, I thought Leo was very uneven -- he has some great moments (his "acting" in the TV pilot with the little girl and Luke Perry is terrific), but he also has some terrible moments -- his penchant for wanting to impress has sometimes gotten the better of him, and there are moments here when you can see him trying to be "great!"

Brad, on the other hand, is effortlessly terrific, a sly, smart, thoroughly ingratiating performance.

The film as a whole is flawed but impressive. Moves way to slow, often with detours that seem more like Tarantino indulging himself rather than advancing the narrative or indicating character.

But it definitely deserves Oscar consideration for Cinematography, Production Design and Costume Design.

R12 = idiot

They would not push both for lead at the risk of vote splitting. Ergo, Mahershala Ali in Supporting for Green Book (which he won) and Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz in Supporting for The Favorite (allowing Olivia Colman to win in Lead).

DiCaprio will be submitted in Lead and Pitt will be submitted in Supporting allowing for an easy win for Pitt. Pitt’s understated performance was excellent but not showy enough for an Oscar lead win.

Leo was the lead, Pitt supporting and Robbie featured.

I saw it today in matinee air conditioned splendor in a reclining seat. I liked it a lot. When Brad took his shirt off in a gratuitous scene, all the women and me gasped. If you're going to see it, see it soon and don't let yourself be overly hyped. There is a payoff.

I’m chiming in too.

The dog food brand was humorous.

Public evaluation has been lukewarm:

[quote]The Cinemascore rating for the movie is B, the lowest of any Quentin Tarantino movie matching only to The Hateful Eight.... Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B" on an A+ to F scale, while those at PostTrak gave it an average 4 out of 5 stars and a 58% "definite recommend."

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a 72% Audience Score, about the lowest for a movie directed by Tarantino.

It wouldn't shock if the box office melts down this week.

The movie requires some patience and intelligence on the part of the audience (a natural love of music, cinema, and entertainment/pop culture history would also be helpful to have going into this...), so that may be why the current audience satisfaction score is not quite as “high” as it could be...

It may be a flawed movie in that it’s overly long, but this is also not a Marvel movie, the 10th entry in a franchise, or some CGI crapfest either—it’s a very well made, well acted, and solidly crafted film. It’s actually quite good.

I personally thought it was the best film I’ve seen so far this year, and everyone I know who has seen it has had a strongly positive reaction to it. (Not even a “meh”, but actively positive...).

I actually expect word of mouth to help bolster the movie’s box office as well as the film’s reputation. There is a lot to like here and I think that most who see it will either like or love it....

It will play best to those with some knowledge/appreciation of Los Angeles, actors and show business which is why I expect it to do well at the Oscars... similar how Birdman "played to the crowd" and won Best Picture over Boyhood.

It's the first movie I've wanted to see again since Manchester by the Sea.

“The movie requires some patience and intelligence on the part of the audience”

Please, Mary. It’s a light summer movie. No IQ needed. It’s obnoxious when the Tarantino fans believe others aren’t smart enough to understand a boring completely mainstream summer movie.

I don't see much Oscar love for this movie for any of the actors unless it's a super weak year in one of the categories.

Margot Robbie doesn't have much to do except "glow".

Pitt was good but it wasn't a showy enough performance for Oscar love.

Leo was pretty funny as a neurotic actor but he never really had a big Oscar bait moment.

Maybe the precious child actress could sneak in for Supporting Actress...or maybe Lens Dunham for her brilliant performance.

The dog was the best thing in the movie. And, Dakota Fanning as scary Squeaky Fromme.

R22, I’m not really a “Tarantino fan” and haven’t even wanted to see one of his movies in a theater in a very long time.

This movie surprised me (I was surprised how much I liked it and how good I thought it was) and I do think it requires a bit more intelligence than your average summer popcorn movie in order to fully enjoy.

The entire Spahn Ranch sequence alone was pretty masterful filmmaking/storytelling in my opinion and set the bar for how good this film could be...

As far as Leo having an “Oscar moment”, I thought his somewhat lengthy nervous breakdown scene alone in his trailer on the set of the western and his subsequent “getting himself back together” to go back to film and then knock his scene with the kid out of the park sequence was pretty great and definitely “showy” enough to get him an Oscar slot.

That was actually the best acting I’ve seen out of DiCaprio in a good long while and it was impressive in my opinion....

I loved the film. Yes, it’s too long, and the detail shown to the filming of the “Lancer” pilot is a place that could have been trimmed..

I thought the ending was terrific. I know it’s controversial, but I thought it was perfect. I think both DiCaprio and Pitt will get nominations. Robbie doesn’t really have anything to do that would make it a supporting Oscar type role.

Best use of Lens Dunham ever! One line, one close-up, and we never see her again. Perfect.

“ I do think it requires a bit more intelligence than your average summer popcorn movie in order to fully enjoy.“

Jesus, Mary.

Once upon a time... I guess this is another macabre fsirytale from Tarantino, rewriting history for a hsppy ending.

I found it overlong and the central plot- a fading actor and a troubled stuntman- kinda ho-hum. The best thing was the visuals: exhaustive precision of 60s music, billboards, commercials, props, styles, music- it really is a time capsule and a trip down memory lane.

I was a bit disappointed. I expected to really adore this.

The narration sucked. Inconsistent. Not well defined. seemed liked after thought. The editing lacked, just lacked.

I wanted a great close up shot of a luminescent Sharon welcoming Rick into the circle.

Margot's makeup could have been more on point, imparticularly her eyelashes.

I wanted more Identification of the almost victims and the perps. Only Sharon, Jay and Tex had any definition. More time spent on Sadie and Linda and Patricia and I would have enjoyed the switch better. Hell, Brandy the dog got more time than Abigail.

That said I did enjoy Brad and Leo. Dakota was fabulous, the whole Spahn ranch was great. And Looooooved The Great Escape. All the general Hollywood stuff was fun.

Surprised at Damien being able to sell McQueen.

QT should have went with more look alikes for some parts.

Don’t they a whole roster of impersonators that are hired for parties and such.

They could’ve had a line or two and kept moving.

I think it would’ve added to the Hollywood atmosphere.

“Should have went”, R29? Really?

[quote]The editing lacked, just lacked.

Sally Menke, who edited all of his movies from Reservoir Dogs to Inglorious Basterds, died in 2010. That's one of the reasons why his last three movies have been messy.

I'm slightly dissapointed to hear from some reviews that Bruce Lee does not get a great deal of airtime. Can anyone confirm this?

I got a kick seeing the late Clint Ritchie. Anyone else spot him?

I loved the movie and especially loved the revisionist end for sharon tate and friends. I thought Leo and Pitt gave oscar worthy perfomances. Robbie not so much. I am a sharon tate fan and I was offended by Robbie. She is much too heavy has fat legs and her face did not register even atttractive, let alone stunningly beautiful as Sharon tate was in life. Tate stopped traffic,, Robbie doesnt even come close. Robbie couldnt make up the difference thru acting. She got the niceness but she badly overplayed the hippy aspect and turned SHaron into somebody frivolous. That sharon tate for sure was not.

Robbie was given NOTHING to do except look pretty. She hardly has any lines.

I was bored by the DiCaprio storyline to be frank. It's to ponderous. On the other hand, I enjoyed every moment Brad Pitt was on the screen. He was effortless, charming, and completely convincing. For me, his is the standout performance in the movie. It's extremely well made, beautifully photographed and worth seeing.

You know who was really terrific is the hippy girl who Pitt picks up in his car. She played Ann Reinking in Fosse/Verdon, and she is wonderful. The whole sequence at the ranch is simply jaw dropping.

I hated when Margot Robbie took her shoes off in the movie theatre and the soles of her feet were filthy. I did not want to look at filthy feet.

Other than that, I liked it.

I think Tarantino's failure to create an actual character out of Tate was a mistake. His portrayal of her is just as vapid as she was usually portrayed onscreen. It was cute that he used Tate's actual movie footage, though, instead of inserting Robbie into those scenes.

R36, she's Andie MacDowell's daughter, Margaret Qualley.

Qualley has a great deal of charisma!

Yeah...the loss of Sally Menke as his editor/collaborator has pretty much ruined Tarantino. She instilled much needed order and discipline and unity on his very messy stories.

Tarantino's great gift is at crafting clever dialogue and interesting set pieces but he's not good at actually crafting a cohesive story.

His movie with the best structure is Pulp Fiction which raises the question, just how much did Roger Avary contribute? I think it was much more than just story ideas.

I guess the story is about the young actors who played in TV westerns and how they struggled afterwards- some successfully (Eastwood, Reynolds) some not so much (James Stacey had a horrible accident that derailed his career).

At the end QT intimates that being introduced to Tate may have been the lucky break that kept eluding Rick. That in Hollywood, it's these chance encounters that can change your career overnight.

I read elsewhere that QT added more Tate scenes after screenings at Cannes (maybe that indicates there's an interest in perhaps a bio movie of her, Hollywood?). But after seeing the movie- although Robbie gives a competent performance- I think less would have been best. Just have her float in and out as an elusive blonde enigma.

I also think the movie should have been about Brad's character, with the Rick Dalton character a minor one- the comic relief. But instead we have Leo emoting all over the place, begging for an Oscar.

[quote]You know who was really terrific is the hippy girl

It's "hippie." No one ever spelled it the other way. "Hippy" meant "large of hip," not "counterculture member with long hair who did drugs and wore bell bottoms."

R37, Me too, I despise feet, and I also hated the scene where the hippie hitchhiker put her feet up on the windshield.

Then again, we have to remember it's Quentin Tarantino, with his big foot fetish...

We had the long hair and bell bottoms, but we didn't do the drugs.

I think portraying Tate as a cipher was appropriate because the movie explored the Manson murders as myth rather than as reality. The fact that Margot Robbie doesn't even look a thing like Tate was beneficial in this regards. Robbie needed to capture an mythical, transcendental beauty and innocence which she did perfectly.

And yes I think Margot will get an Oscar nomination in Supporting... I think this movie will go over very well with the Academy, probably at least ten nominations.

I'm predicting 13. Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Screenplay, Editing, the two Sounds, Cinematography, Art Direction, Hair & Makeup, Costumes

God, how many more threads do we need? Bitches need to earn their money. This will not make the box office that is expected - as for noms and wins, those can be bought so doesn't really count. The New Yorker and the NY Post don't like your gross movie, shithead.

At least now I know Andie MacDowell has a daughter.

The New Yorker review bashing this film is a total hit piece, R49....

It was a tedious, ponderous, badly written review that was *reaching* hard for any excuse (real or imagined) to hate this movie.

The film was excellent and had many surprising performances and moments.

The New Yorker review is so over the top bitter and sanctimonious—and some of its main criticisms are things like the movie allegedly being “ridiculously white”. Seriously!

Anyone who includes that statement in an allegedly “serious” review of a highly accomplished major motion picture (and one of the best movies of the year) is not getting any respect from me for their opinions...

r49 Oscars can not be bought. That would be impossible with the way voting works.

Nice try though

r51 I saw someone else complain about how white the movie was also and many were agreeing with them.

I didn't even think of it and I am not white.

However, I can see the issue when the film takes place in 1969 Hollywood, and whites were not (and still are not) the majority in LA. They are actually 3rd on the totem pole there.

But one can say that they were/are the majority in the Hollywood Hills, where most of this takes place.

The review also complains about: the film’s portrayal of the 1960s, the portrayal of women, the portrayal of Sharon Tate, the portrayal of Bruce Lee, Tarantino’s admiring (in any way) the classic age of Hollywood filmmaking, admiring the old studio system in any way, the “too” positive portrayal of people who make films, “fact” that “John Ford already made this movie (and allegedly did it better) with “Where Eagles Dare”, the line that mentions “Mexicans”, the fact that the focus of the film are “males”, the alleged use of the word “hippies” in the film as a “slur”, the film’s portrayal of “marriage” (not kidding!) and on and on, R53....

It is fucking exhausting! And it reads like a gender studies or sociology paper for school and not like a film review....

The movie takes place in two white worlds, the television business of Los Angeles production circa 1969, and the Manson family.

Perhaps Tarantino can make his next film about the People's Church in San Francisco to please critics who want a more racially diverse film.

Actually Leonardo as Jim Jones would be fantastic.

I agree with your review, OP; it was a great film!

It's not Oscar material, except for production design or something. This is QT's homage to his little self, babysitted by the TV in Los Angeles in the 60s.

OMG, QT's dad is in the business, though he says he's never met him.

[quote]And yes I think Margot will get an Oscar nomination in Supporting... I think this movie will go over very well with the Academy, probably at least ten nominations.

Unless the Academy goes over the board with their love, I can't see Margot getting nominated for... well, dancing and watching Sharon Tate on screen. I liked her in the film, but a nom would be... well, silly. It'd have to be a profoundly weak year for that to happen.

Margaret Qualley would be more deserving.

I didn’t like Qualley. She came off like she was acting.

The most deserving Oscar nomination came from MY performance. Me myself and I.

Now let me go smooch with Brad. He loves me!

Now [italic]there[/italic]'s a story, r57.

This was absolutely my favorite Lens Dunham performance. One quick shot and a line, and we never had to see her again.

[quote]Margaret Qualley would be more deserving.

I agree, though the role doesn't quite have enough "stuff" to it for an Oscar nom. Dakota Fanning's cameo does, though.

I didn't notice her. Was she the non-hostile (at first) hippie at Spahn's ranch?

She was SQUEAKY FROMME, bitch!

Depends on whom you mean, r64. Dakota Fanning was Squeaky Fromme, Margaret Qualley was the Mansonette who kept flirting with Brad Pitt until he finally gave her a ride to the Spahn ranch.

Thanks, r67. I was actually wondering who was played by Lens. r64 was actually a response to r62, but r63 slipped in in front of me.

Lens played Catherine Share.

That TV pilot would have to have been seven hours long if they were going to have spent so much time on those couple of scenes where not much really happened.

Likewise with the little girl scene. What a cunt in the making!

Damian lewis was a very credible Steve McQueen. I would bet, though, that never once in his life did the real Steve ever get turned down by some woman he wanted to fuck, or if so, that he would have been rueful about it.

I do think this might be seen as the vehicle in which Brad Pitt will get his Oscar. Did his dead wife have more than one scene or was anything else said about her death? I did a quick bathroom break so missed a few minutes.

Hands down, the worst edited movie I've ever seen. Scenes went on for far too long with no discernible purpose and the whole bloated mess could've been cut by a third. Two interesting characters (Pitt's and Leo's) in search of a cogent script, which was sorely lacking. Art direction excellent, cinematography good. It ain't gonna win Best Picture although Pitt may have a shot at Supporting Actor.

Why wasn't Lena Dunham chosen to portray Cass Elliot? Would have been perfect casting.

The worst editing you’ve *ever* seen, R71?

I think that the Rick Dalton pilot filming scenes went on for too long, but other than that, I thought the editing was good. It’s a “slow burn” and character driven film, it’s not an action movie where it’s supposed to cut to another scene every other second..

I thought that the Spahn Ranch sequence in particular was a masterful piece of filmmaking from beginning to end.

That little girl bored and annoyed me. I was so happy when her scenes were over.

Leo was unbelievable as a 60s TV Western star. Those guys were gorgeous hunks, while Leo still looks pre-pubescent.

The movie is a nice nostalgic trip for people who lived in Los Angeles in the 1960s. The scenery is not nearly as interesting to the rest of us.

Overrated and overhyped.

The negative New Yorker review was not even written by their main film critic, Anthony Lane. It was Richard Brody, who only writes for NewYorker.com and occasional film blurbs in the front of the magazine. He has *never* had a film review run in the "Critics" section at the back of the magazine, where Lane's pieces run. Brody is a total hack, a terrible film writer and I'm convinced he must have incriminating pictures of David Remnick or something in order to remain employed there.

Lane, btw, gave "Once Upon ..." a mostly positive review. That's the one that ran in print. I'm not even sure why they let Brody write about it at all.

Thank you, R75; good to know!

That terrible New Yorker piece by Brody *really* had me thinking that this magazine’s film criticism had gone to shit. It was truly a bizarrely written “review”...

If you have no sense of humor, don't see it.

True, R77; it is unexpectedly funny!

(Also has the least violence and cursing of any QT movie; it was excellent all around and very different movie for him...)

[quote]Rick likes nothing more, even now, than sitting down with his buddy Cliff and a six-pack of cold ones

No one said "cold ones" in 1969.

I really hope that they don’t push Pitt in Supporting; if they do, I hope the Academy rejects such category fraud and nominates him in Lead, where he belongs.

"No one said "cold ones" in 1969."

I am happy to contradict that. It's incorrect. I had older relatives back then who certainly did refer to them that way, humorously.

r81 "Cold [italic]what[/italic]?", I always ask myself. It sounds too generic, like "have a good one." Have a good [italic]what[/italic]?, I wonder. Thanks, though, for your clarification.

I think "cold ones" was really kind of hipster-beatnik humor back in the early Sixties, and it hung on for a while. The motorcycle gang characters in S. Clay Wilson's underground comix from back then use it a good bit. I had an uncle, who had never heard of S. Clay Wilson, who used the phrase pretty frequently, as a joke. -R81.

What of Luke Perry's performance, no one has mentioned it?

I blinked so I missed it, r84.

[quote]I really hope that they don’t push Pitt in Supporting; if they do, I hope the Academy rejects such category fraud and nominates him in Lead, where he belongs.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Christoph Waltz also won a Supporting Oscar for what was basically a co-lead role in Django Unchained.

Tarantino’s Daddy Weinstein isn’t around anymore to buy his boy any awardsz

[quote]LOL...gee, there seems to be a lot of publicists on the threads drumming up support for this movie.

This, in r3.

And anyone who writes “LOL” should be shamed.

[quote]And anyone who writes “LOL” should be shamed.

This, times 1,000,000, anywhere and everywhere.

Mahershala Ali was 100% a supporting role

Brad Pitt is 100% a lead role.

Love it. Have seen it twice so far, and am going again to see it in Westwood this weekend.

What scene had Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen? I missed it.

All the dirty bare feet closeups were gross knowing Tarantino was somewhere jerking off to them.

Leo and Brad are co-leads, but there's no way they'll submit them both in that category. People honestly need to get over category fraud. Ultimately, awards don't matter... they don't make a film or performance or director any worse or better... the quality is in the art and its perception.

Think of it as a game. It's all strategy. The point is to win, so they'll submit Pitt in supporting because he's got the best shot at winning an Oscar there. Sony's not going to push him in lead to appease users on the internet shouting, "Category fraud!" They're gonna push him in supporting because Brad Pitt holding an Oscar is more important to them than your nagging.

Every fucking season we get these category fraud complaints, and it's like... is this your first awards season? It's part and parcel of the whole awards gig now. Get over it.

[quote]What scene had Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen? I missed it.

He's introduced when Polanski and Tate hit up the Playboy Mansion. He's the one narrating the relational history between Tate, Polanski, and Jay Sebring, and he laments that he never had a chance with Tate. It's literally just one scene.

The problem with the Steve McQueen is that not only is he not her type, she’s not his type, either. He liked dark-haired, dark-eyed women: Neile Adams, Ali MacGraw, Barbara Minty (and allegedly Natalie Wood).

Brad Pitt HAS AN OSCAR.

R85 Why would they had done a huge billboard for his character if it wasn't a substantial part?

R97 But not FOR ACTING!

Because he just died. He has one scene.

R98 They likely did it as a memorial to the actor, which is sweet.

Is Luke Perry's son a wrestler?

But there was already an actual memorial billboard for him already?

Wow, speaking of billboards, did anyone get to see when they did this? I didn't know Epstein had ties to Hollywood. Was this why he tried to commit suicide?

They gave Perry a billboard because they want to make money off a dead celeb.

Billboards on Sunset are to make the actors happy. Not to make money.

It was probably in his contract.

R104 That's funny.

Billboards on Sunset are to sell shit. Like everything. Welcome to America r106

Their portrayal of Bruce Lee is offensive.

They're also used for FYC campaigns. Bit early for this one, but ultimately yeah... it's all advertising.

[quote]Their portrayal of Bruce Lee is offensive.

Elaborate please.

R105 But isn't the whole movie with it's twist ending contrary to that notion?

Oscars for the acting in THIS film? I. Don't. Think. So.

Pitt was effortlessly charismatic... truly great performance there. DiCaprio was fun, but I can always see the work.

Apparently everyone in LA has southern accents, at least according to this film.

Did Tarantino think LA is in Tennessee?

[quote]Billboards on Sunset are to sell shit. Like everything. Welcome to America [R106]

Agreed, but not always directly.

Billboards on Sunset are to make the actors happy so they work cheaper.

R115 Rick Dalton's from Missouri. I'm not sure where Cliff's from. They were also filming a western throughout the majority of the film, so maybe that confused you?

It's funny, you can be from other places, like England, New York and the south and live in LA and still have an accent.

Some people never lose their accents, but I doubt that many people in LA 1969 were from the South.

Many of the Manson trash had accents too.

Rick Daltons racist ass belongs back in Missouri.

Apparently Tarantino thought LA was only white People also.

"Don't cry in front of the Mexicans."

Hollywood was pretty damn white in 1969.

All the racism in OUATIH is historically accurate.

R120 this movie is about white people. Why do POC always want to butt in and be part of everything concerning white people.

Let them tell their own stories.

R123 why do white People act like POC aren’t PEOPLE and we are ALL HUMAN. You aren’t superior you dumb fucking trash bag.

R122 whites weren’t the majority in LA and are even less so now.

R124

I agree with your first sentence

As for your second, no of course LA wasn’t all white. But people employed by Hollywood, especially in front of the camera, were almost all white, and they were mostly very racist.

Does Leo’s character have anal sex with any men in the movie? If not I’m not interested

I think he does, but they don’t show it.

R102, Yes. He wrestles as Jungle Boy, and he's kind of hot!

Rick should have given Cliff a pounding after he saved his life.

Pitt deserves the Oscar nomination for this one, not DiCaprio.

Wouldn’t it be funny if this turned out to be an L.A. Confidential situation, with only the gorgeous blonde nominated? Pearce, Crowe, and Spacey were all amazing but were overlooked.

Bruce Lee was portrayed as homely, scrawny, short and hot-tempered. None of the actor's charisma was evident. He also got the shit beat out of him by Brad Pitt.

R131, “L.A. Confidential” was an awesome movie—one of my all time favorites...

Bruce Lee was a real cocky asshole.

R132, “Kill Bill” was basically a tribute/homage to the awesomeness of Bruce Lee and his movies; Tarantino clearly loves and reveres Lee...

Bruce Lee in this movie is portrayed as charismatic and talented (there’s also the sequence where he is shown trainingSharon Tate for her fight scenes in a film).

He is in a very fun comedic sequence behind the scenes on a film lot with the Brad Pitt character. There is absolutely nothing racist about it and, in fact....

****SPOILER ALERT*****

Brad’s character gets humiliatingly fired off the film set for even fighting with Lee in the first place because Lee “is the star”...

The whole Bruce Lee scene is as much revisionist fantasy as Tate not dying.

True, R136; the movie is quite humorous and surprising in several ways and makes no bones about being a revisionist fantasy. I think people try to hard now to be “outraged” about every movie now that’s not a Disney remake...

It happens every time Tarantino makes a film.

And the Bruce Lee scene is a good example of the horrible editing some have mentioned.

When Bruce and Cliff square off they are surrounded by a lot of people. Once the start fights in the next shot all those people are missing. Where’d they go?

It would have been funny to see them run away once the fight starts but that isn’t shown.

Now you see them, now you don’t.

Clearly the bigot can’t tell the difference between editing and continuity.

What are the stories white People are being held back from telling that haven’t been told already? R123 I’m curious what story this movie was telling that had to do with “white People”.

Because last time I checked it had to do with an ACTOR, ACTRESS, and a STUNT MAN. The story had NOTHING to do with their skin color.

But you wouldn’t understand that as you’re a racist

Bruce Lee was portrayed exactly as he should have been: as a cocky, arrogant "dancer" (as Pitt calls him) who claims he could deck Muhammed Ali.

Bruce Lee's daughter is not happy with how her father is portrayed in this movie. She said she saw the movie and the audience was "laughing" at the scene where Brad Pitt is beating up Lee. I guess they found it ridiculous. No doubt it was.

Actually, that whole Bruce Lee scene could have been cut and it would have been fine. It wasn’t necessary.

At first I thought he was portraying Bruce Lee’s stuntman as he was hanging around all the crew people and other stuntmen.

I didn’t think Lee was as cocky as that in real life.

[quote]Their portrayal of Bruce Lee is offensive.

Oh come on, can we just admit after all these years he was a joke? WhooWaaa! Chop! Seriously, who fucking does that in real battle?

I’ve seen the film 3 times and all 3 times the audience laughs at Bruce Lee.

The scene is mocking him.

I was so board with DiCaprio's roll as an actor playing an actor. It was so industry narcissistic gone up to 11. Way too much of the story line. I get it, actors and industry people find that shit fascinating, but the general populous who was no interest in being an actor do not. They could have conveyed that message in 1/4 of the time they spent on that. I would have rather seen more character development of the other people.

I agree. Leonardo is so overrated.

Leo isn’t physically attractive. I don’t see what the hype is about.

Political correctness is ruining DL.

Aw. Did the liddle bigot get his feelings hurt?

Great film.

[quote]I’ve seen the film 3 times and all 3 times the audience laughs at Bruce Lee. The scene is mocking him.

As they should. HE WAS A JOKE even back in his own day.

II enjoyed the movie, but I cannot imagine seeing it three times in one week. It's enjoyable, but it's not terrible deep, and does not require intellectual effort of any kind (despite the insane poster upthread who seems to believe it's worthy of Ingmar Bergman).

Pitt ran away with the movie and I think he will most certainly get a Supporting nod. But if there's a Suporting Actress nomination to be had here it's gonna go to the little girl. She's gotten very strong notices and despite the limited screen time she's definitely given more to do than the any of the other female parts. She also talks to the lead character whether consiously or not about something (the book)that makes him think and talk about himself and reflect then eventually recognize where he is in his own life and career. And as he explains the book to her you see he's basically describing himself. Her lines were fantastic and while not the most expressive young actress her delivery and inflections are supremely charming and well done.

The Bruce Lee sequence is a fun fight sequence that***spoiler****foreshadows Pitt’s characters later shocking takedown of the Manson clan on his home turf....

It’s not about being “negative” about Lee. The sequence is fun and people are reading way too much into it...

I don't get why he rewrote the ending. In the real world the murders were very graphic, disturbing and the Manson clan did a second round the very next night. A third night was planned for Malibu but it didn't work out when the wrong guy answered the door.

They left out the murder of Coffee Heiress Abigail Folger. Imagine if she had lived, we might of had Folgers on every comer by now instead of Starbucks.

[post redacted because independent.co.uk thinks that links to their ridiculous rag are a bad thing. Somebody might want to tell them how the internet works. Or not. We don't really care. They do suck though. Our advice is that you should not click on the link and whatever you do, don't read their truly terrible articles.]

The Bruce Lee sequence also shows why Cliff couldn't get stunt work anymore unless it was for Rick.

R159 “we might of had Folgers...”.

R160, he sho is ugly!

I went to a screening with Tarantino a few days before the premiere, and everyone was talking about Brad for Best Actor- not supporting. It's Brad's time.

[quote]Brad’s character gets humiliatingly fired off the film set for even fighting with Lee in the first place because Lee “is the star”...

He was fired because the stunt coordinator's wife didn't like Pitt's character. And it was her car he threw Lee into.

R142 Bruce Lee worshipped Muhammad Ali. He was never that cocky.

I enjoyed the scene between Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth, especially to show what Cliff was capable of, but it's also ridiculous. Cliff not getting his ass handed back to him by Bruce Lee is the most fantastical part of the movie, other than the ending.

I rolled my eyes at Brad Pitt beating Bruce Lees ass.

Please.

So what scene was Luke Perry in? I missed him, too.

The scene with the little girl, R169.

The little girl was played by Julia Butters, who plays Anna-Kat Otto on the TV sitcom American Housewife.

The little girl was very good.

Brad Pitt is NOT a supporting actor in this movie. He should be nominated for best actor. DiCaprio was fucking boring and doesn't deserve a nomination.

R154 Bruce Lee was not a joke. He was considered a very talented martial arts artists

DiCaprio is so lame these days

The complaints about LA being shown as too white are funny. I was there back then and it seemed pretty white. Of course as tourists we weren't in Watts, East LA and more diverse neighborhoods. I think that things were a lot more segregated back then in most cities and people self-segregated. Westwood, Santa Monica, Hollywood Hills and Beverly Hills were fairly white areas.

He was solid in his scene, R169; he plays the girl’s wealthy and heroic older brother who comes to save/ransom his little sister from Leo’s character’s evil villain in the “Lancer” pilot....

Eagerly waiting for this one. Seems like it will be a masterpiece from the great one. Quentin Tarantino's swan song. So, definitely a must watch. And I hate spoilers.

R177 If you hate spoilers I would avoid most of the threads on OUATIH on dl. The plot has been discussed at length in multiple threads here. I would come back after you've seen the film.

R175 whites have always been a minority in LA.

The movie is a Deplorable Fantasy.

Seriously, R181? You sound deranged...🙄

R181 clearly when LA is depicted as 99% white when whites were a minority and everyone has southern accents.

Wasn't he her uncle, r176? Since they were roughly 40 years apart in age, being her brother doesn't seem likely.

He’s her Uncle. He has one scene like many others had.

These are American office hours. The people posting to revive these threads are getting paid for it, and are working 9-5.

R187 Who is paying them to revive the threads? Tarantino?

Sony & Tarantino

You guys talking about people “reviving” this thread: the film only came out in the US a few days ago, so people are still seeing it and talking about it...

This isn’t some years or even months old thread that is suddenly being “revived”.

just ignore the stupid trolls

More like just ignore the posts from Sony PR Dept.

DLers try to find conspiracies in everything. It's sad. I'm sure people just want to discuss the big Tarantino film that just came out. If I worked for Sony's PR, the last refuge I'd use was a site for bitter old gays. Fuck.

It’s not DL, it’s the trolls. They just want to shit on our conversation.

Just punch and delete (use the ignore button)

Bruce Lee's training partner Dan Inosanto was also not pleased with how Bruce Lee was portrayed in this movie. From the LA Times:

Bruce Lee was many things during his tragically short life: a master martial artist, an actor, director, philosopher and even a poet.

But according to his former training partner, Dan Inosanto, he was not arrogant and ungracious the way he is depicted in “Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood.”

In Quentin Taranto’s acclaimed new film, Lee (played by Mike Moh) claims, while on the set of “The Green Hornet,” he could easily defeat boxer Muhammad Ali in a fight and talks down the former heavyweight champ.

In an interview with Variety, Inosanto claims that wouldn’t have happened.

“Bruce Lee would have never said anything derogatory about Muhammad Ali because he worshiped the ground Muhammad Ali walked on. In fact, he was into boxing more so than martial arts,” Inosanto said, adding to a growing chorus of criticism about Lee’s portrayal in the movie. (Inosanto also admitted to Variety that he hasn’t seen the film yet.)

After spending years training with Lee and being at his side during movie shoots, Inosanto is upset at the notion that Lee, who he says “broke ground for Asian Americans,” would be so brazen and pompous while on set.

“He was never, in my opinion, cocky,” noted Inosanto. “Maybe he was cocky in as far as martial arts because he was very sure of himself. He was worlds ahead of everyone else. But on a set, he’s not gonna show off.” Inosanto is speaking out just days after Shannon Lee, Bruce Lee’s daughter, voiced her displeasure with the unfavorable depiction of her father.

“I feel like [Tarantino] turned [Lee’s] confidence into arrogance and his intelligence into mockery,” Lee told The Times. “I feel like he was picked on in the way that he was picked on in life by white Hollywood.”

Brushe Wee

Sony doesn't need DL. This film is skewing 60% 18-34 males, hardly DL demographics. And they go by actual age, not 40 who looks 30.

Also many multiple viewers, always a good thing.

R195 I agree with both Shannon Lee and his training partner.

The way Bruce was portrayed wasn’t flattering and seemed to mock him.

We can all guess for sure the studio will push Leo as lead and Brad as supporting. To be true I thought they were both fantastic but I always thought San Jackson in Pulp Fiction was arguably more of a lead than Travolta. His character even had a more pronounced arc. I don't think Leo will or should be nominated. But Brad Pitt will get the Supporting Sctor nomination I bet.

Brad is being pushed for Lead. Give it a rest. It's in his contract.

R200. Please provide documentation

This could easily be Brad's Best Actor Oscar. Leo doesn't deserve a nomination. He chews the scenery while Pitt is effortless.

R201, sorry no Just wait.

Bruce Lee was really screwed over during his career. He originated the concept for the tv series "Kung Fu" which Warner Brothers stole. He WAS considered for the lead role of Kwai Chang Caine but was passed over in favor of an non-Asian actor, David Carradine. Yes, Bruce Lee never got his due in Hollywood.

Naturally r204.

He’s Asian. They think they’re white but they aren’t.

[quote] The worst editing you’ve *ever* seen, [R71]?.... I think that the Rick Dalton pilot filming scenes went on for too long, but other than that, I thought the editing was good. It’s a “slow burn” and character driven film, it’s not an action movie where it’s supposed to cut to another scene every other second..

Did we really need to see Brad Pitt drive for blocks and blocks? Did we need to see the Manson guy ride a horse all the way back to the ranch thru the canyon? No we didn't. Scene after scene went on way too long.

And every character Tarantino writes says "fuck" every other word. It's tired Q, no one in real life uses that word as much as your characters do.

The movie staff at the Westwood theater would have known who she is. He name was on the marquee and her face all over the one sheet and lobby cards right there in front. And not for nothing, having worked in theaters, most employees would be movie fans just like Tarantino was attracted to the video store.

Whatta lost opportunity. Yeah it's a hit and it will make some money and probably win awards but this could have been a two parter Like "Kill Bill". The first half with Leo and his house and the second next door. He could have made a terrifying picture of this horrible tragedy instead of the silly comedy he chose to do. I thought it was a real insult to the victims.

I love how they have Sharon Tate be too cheap to pay the .75 to see the movie

He makes a fool of Tate. The sister was paid to give it a positive blurb. Tarantino is a slob.

His love of Tate is obvious. The sister was not paid...that statement is ludicrous. Tarantino is a great director.

Good director. Great? ehhhhh.

I've now seen it 4 times. One of the best films I've seen in ages.

From r212 “I went to a screening with Tarantino a few days before the premiere, and “

Ok, Mary. Go PR somewhere else. You are at work here.

I think Tate is presented as a hippie soul: the 75 cents, her filthy feet, her sweetness to the hitchhiker, the way she danced. We see lots of feet in this film, but only the Manson girls and Sharon’s are dirty.

Tarantino's foot fetish is getting tiresome too. All his female characters have to show their feet. He's like a modern day Russ Meyer with is big tit obsession.

R213, I was being honest. Look at the BO numbers- QT doesn't need DL shills. Check out Alison Martino's posts Vintage LA.

I don't understand this talk of foot fetishism? Is this something that he has been explored in his films before? Is it written about as an actual part of his oeuvre or is it in the imagination of a few trolls?

Google it.

I don’t remember fuck being said that much in this movie, his others yes.

They didn’t cuss that much here.

Margot never did.

Anna-Kat!

Call me Captain Obvious but the ending really has generated polarized reactions.

I thought it was intentionally cartoonish, and, I can't believe I reacted this way because I usually HATE violence in non-superhero films, but I actually thought it was comedic and I laughed.

I kinda feel weird at myself over that.

This was too long, 2h.41m. it would have been better if it was edited down to 1.5-2 hours. I thought Pitt and DeCaprio were good. Loved the cinematography and the feel of the 60s it conveyed.

I loved the length of it. I wouldn’t have cut a single frame.

There's rumors that there will be a 4 hour version.

R225 How about a two hour version instead.

Yes R222, I thought it was borderline Benny Hill or Three Stooges during the ending.

Everyone was laughing in the theater I saw it in.

Everyone pretty much laughs during the end, especially with the flamethrower.

R205 Idiot, no one wants to be white anymore these days.

But keep on thinking that every POC wants to be...

It's the first movie I wanted to see since Hellraiser 4: Bloodline.

[quote]There's rumors that there will be a 4 hour version.

Gee, two more hours of Brad Pitt driving around Hollywood and more dirty feet. Yippeee.

THE movie being so long is obnoxious. I don’t need to watch a cgi car driving around. He’s no genius. I get tired of the fan boys parroting his pr. His fans are a known incel leaning quantity.

Pitt really did drive that car around Hollywood/L.A., R232—(particularly up and down Hollywood Blvd.). Not only are there pap pics and videos of him doing so during filming (*not* crap or fake images from an “on set” or “studio hired photographer”....).

They also shut down long stretches of the Blvd. for these scenes and Brad was sitting in the car in full costume, driving up and down the various streets himself, etc.

I and many other “pedestrians” in L.A. witnesses this. (And like I said, there are tons of pap pics of him driving around in character during the filming to verify what I’m writing...)

R233 is a good example of the parroting.

You sound like a pr person.

R234, you must not live in LA. Transforming blocks of Hollywood into the 1960s was all over the news during filming. It was a big deal here.

I don’t care, r235. It’s boring.

I don’t care, r235. It’s boring.

R236 is a moron

If you don't care, find a Markle thread.

R239 - an incel

Incel? Certainly you can do better, or maybe not.

R238 Why is R236 a moron, but not R237? Are you playing favorites again?

I saw it at the Cinerama Dome tonight. It's a great love letter to LA and there's a certain magic to walking out of the theater and being in Hollywood. It give me a buzz I haven't felt walking in Hollywood since I first moved here.

That said, every time there was a random closeup of women's feet, I was like...WTF QT

I feel like I am taking crazy pills. This movie was a fucking mess, people are letting this "love letter to LA" beauty blind to the obvious narrative shortcomings.

What even is this movie? It's over ambitious. As a story about a former western star aging out of the business and his stunt double it works, but it insists on shoehorning in the Manson subplot and it really doesn't work.

If you think about his past movies, Inglourious Basterds works as this powerful revenge fantasy for Jews who have been victimized by anti-Semitism and the movie gives us a reason to care, "Django Unchained" does the same thing for black people who have been victims of racism and the movie gives us a reason to care. Here the final sequence of these 3 characters who in the context of the movie have no development, is just what? It doesn't have anything like those other Tarantino films level of carthasis. Why are we supposed to cheer to see our main characters overcome these antagonists in the climax? This is no Kill Bill where we are given a reason to to see why we want to see our hero finally beat them. People can bring up the acts some of these people did in real life, but none of this is present in the movie itself. Movies need to stand as their own narrative structure, this one doesn't do that. Sharon Tate flirts throughout the movie for little narrative purpose other than a tease about whether she will die. If anything you could structure this movie to have her fight and save her own life I guess, but she is completely removed from the action. Just another way this movie is a mash up of different ideas that weren't sorted out.

This movie does some beautiful film making, but as a story the script needed a hard second look. Heavy on style, low on substance.

R243 It's a great travelogue for LA lovers. It's on the dull side for everyone else.

Heavy on style, low on substance? No wonder I loved it- that's me!

I'm not surprised to see the audience reaction has been very lukewarm compared to the critical praise r18. The critics love the industry and enjoy this love letter to old Hollywood stuff, the audience wants to see a movie.

I’m confused why people keep referring to the time period of this movie as “Old Hollywood?” Here is a suggestion that the term refers to 1930-1945. What are the clear definitions of “Old Hollywood,” “Golden Age of Hollywood,” and “Classical Hollywood?”

I will say, this song paired with "Sharon Tate's Last Day" was nothing short of perfect.

[quote] But if there's a Suporting Actress nomination to be had here it's gonna go to the little girl.

You're the same person who told us that the little boy who played Gavroche in "Les Miserables" was going to get one, aren't you?

I don't think either she nor Margot Robbie will get a nomination. The little girl is wonderful, but she just has one big scene, really-- when they nominate children, it's usually because the child is in the entire movie (like Tatum O'Neal, Anna Paquin, Quinn Cummings, etc.) and so cannot be overlooked. Margot Robbie is also wonderful as Tate, but the Academy will be extremely unlikely to nominate her because of her few lines.

Pitt will definitely get a nomination, but whether it will be for Best Actor (because he has as much screentime as Di Caprio) or Best Supporting Actor (because he'd be more likely to win this, and because his part is that of the sidekick) is up to the studio. If he does go up for BSA I think he's pretty likely to win, given that people in Hollywood mostly like him, and he really shines in this part. if he's up for Best Actor his competition will be likely harder.

Di Caprio MAY be nominated for Best Actor because even though the role is over the top he's quite good in it; he would be extremely unlikely to win, though, because he is outshone by Pitt (in the subtler part), because he won recently (although that's not always a dealbreaker by itself), and because he has not been praised enough for the performance so far by critics (though he has garnered praise, it's been more tepid than the praise for Pitt).

I would guess the film will win nominations for Best Picture and Best Director and Best Editing, and maybe Best Costumes. I would think the Academy would want to award Tarantino for doing a quieter and less obnoxious film than he has done in years, and one that has been critically highly rated, too.

Golden Derby saying for now they are campaigning Pitt as supporting which really is ridiculous.

Of course Pitt is going to go into supporting, I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case.

I don't think Leo did anything exceptional in this one. Brad owned it. Margot made the most of her limited screentime

R245 raises good points.

I’d be interested in hearing from someone who has seen it who has never heard of Tate or Manson or the murders.

Do they “get” the ending?

I was only nominally familiar with the Manson murders. I never did a deep dive into the history before watching the film, so I didn't know the specifics, but throughout the film I kept thinking, "Ooh, I bet if I knew the history this moment would work for me, or I'd know who this character was." For instance, Brad leaving Leo's pad after dropping him off and speeding down that hill.. the camera dramatically moves to reveal the Cielo Drive sign. I didn't know that's where the murders took place, but I figured by the camera move that it must have been significant.

So when it came to the Manson stuff, I wasn't in the know, but I knew that these moments must have been significant.

But I mean... Tarantino narrates the whole evening in the last act, so I wasn't lost or anything.

I'm still ambivalent about the film. When I read high praise I understand where they're coming from, and when I read heavy critiques, I understand where they're coming from.

That Out of Time segment was divine, r250. I’m pissed they couldn’t get it on the soundtrack.

R257 I've heard it was because that version of the song came out in 1975. It was my favorite song in the movie so when I bought the soundtrack, I deleted all the stupid 10 sec ads and added it

Be sure to add Twelve Thirty, too, r258.

For my fellow soundtrack fans

Link won't post: https:// screenrant .com/once-upon-time-hollywood-movie-soundtrack-songs/

Lukewarm audience? Hardly.

[quote] I deleted all the stupid 10 sec ads and added it

Haha, I loved that about the soundtrack. I listened to it while taking a drive through my local national forest and the radio interstitials do a good job of taking you back in time.

This song was also missing from the soundtrack. I love canyons, so it's the song that stood out to me the most.

The Tarantino fanboys on message boards are the most annoying idiots on the internet with their forced, exaggerated praise and sniveling excuse-making for this hack. The movie is ridiculously long and self-indulgent. It spends a stupidly protracted amount of time recreating an episode of a forgotten TV Western called Lancer (that sequence goes on forever). There's a badly written, sitcomish scene between Leo and a precocious 8 year old discussing acting craft that any other writer would be castigated for putting in a movie. The "payoff" at the end is bloody and violent and we're expected to cheer it like Pavlovian dogs. What's so impressive about a dog biting someone's crotch or a girl getting her face slammed into a table over and over? The pea-brained Taranteenybopper fanboys are such morons they clap and bark like chimps over anything he does. The audience I saw it with fell dead silent an hour into it and remained lifeless the rest of the running time. When it was over a handful of dumbasses tried to applaud but they stopped after a couple of claps when they realized no one else was going to join in.

The only performance in the entire movie that is a surprise and impressed me was Dakota Fanning as Squeaky Fromme. I've never seen her so effective and intense on screen. She's memorable. The rest of the movie is empty trash. Critics and fanboys just don't have the character or maturity to admit that Tarantino is a HOAX. That the emperor has no clothes and he's been naked for most of his entire career. A couple of second rate martial arts movies, a second rate blaxploitation movie, a second rate Dirty Dozen WWII war movie, and a booooorrriiiiiinnnngggg THIRD rate Western. Some filmography, a real Billy Wilder. See the originals of the movies he's trying to copy. They're much much much better.

Yawn ^

Well, somebody is having a lot feelings 🙄

R263, I've forgotten more than you know about film.

Why does Tarantino have such disdain for Bruce Lee?

Why does Tarantino have such disdain for murderous hippies r267?

Is you concern for Bruce Lee only because he’s of the yellow variety?

Both Kill Bill movies were a tribute to Bruce Lee.

I'm surprised that QT would pick out songs that he couldn't get for the soundtrack.

What I loved about about Tarantino's vision was seeing Hollywood as a miasma awash in movies. Billboards and marquees everywhere, promoting multiple images of product. It's all about product, and where the various characters find themselves in the world of product. A dark concept, made disturbingly bright by the unrelenting California sun. (And, frankly, in Hollywood, nothing much has changed.)

Except for Tate, who's dancing on the edge of the abyss, DiCaprio and Pitt are subsisting on the periphery, and know it. Curiously, each has underlying rage, which surfaces violently. DiCaprio channels his career frustration into hatred of "hippies," while Pitt maintains a cool exterior, until he doesn't.

Each of them has reached their current level, more or less because of their own behavior. Pitt drives DiCaprio, because DiCaprio lost his driver's license in a DUI, which also contributed to DiCaprio's ending his series lead role. DiCaprio still drinks all the time, even bemoaning that he was doing that, instead of learning his lines, causing a destructive binge in his trailer. Pitt is clearly his own worst enemy, giving in to violence, earlier when he's holding a spear gun as his wife loudly and repeatedly berates him, then giving in to violence, and losing his job, when he trounces Bruce Lee. His horrific reaction to home invasion is actually characteristic of the frustrated rage within him.

Like many other Tarantino films, OUATIH has varied virtues, with several standout sequences that make it memorable: Tate's sweet enjoyment watching herself, Pitt's suspenseful encounter at the Spahin ranch, DiCaprio's encounter with the little girl, all too wise beyond her years. And, of course, that violent climax, a perhaps fitting end to Tarantino's kind of fairy tale. There is violence lurking under every sugary surface, and it explodes when provoked.

All of the attention to the entertainment business detail lulls us into enjoyment, until the veneer is continually yanked away. A contemporary fable, indeed.

There's a good article on the music in Rolling Stone. Nothing is used after 1969, and evidently people approached QT about remakes or even new material and he wasn't interested.

[quote] Is you concern for Bruce Lee only because he’s of the yellow variety?,Both Kill Bill movies were a tribute to Bruce Lee.

What are you babbling about? He made Lee out to be a fool.

It case your mind was wandering throughout the entire movie, gramps, he made EVERYONE out to be a fool.

With the exception of that little girl actor.

R270, nice take on this film.

[quote]With the exception of that little girl actor.

I wanted to stomp her smarmy little face in the dirt street.

Charming

R266, you've forgotten what a good movie is, moron, if you like this overrated dreck. You and Yawnboy R264 are typical examples of Taranteenybopper wet diaper weaklings. Too puerile and punk ass to handle the truth about what a fraud Tarantino is.

R266, you've forgotten what a good movie is, moron, if you like this overrated dreck. You and Yawnboy R264 are typical examples of Taranteenybopper wet diaper weaklings. Too puerile and punk ass to handle the truth about what a fraud Tarantino is.

Um, did Tarantino reject you for a job or something? ^

R277 you are the definition of sperging

R278 /263 Tells it like it really is.

Art is subjective. You two are having separate reactions to this film. That's okay. No need to ceaselessly bitch about it.

Well articulated, R270! I liked your line about Tate dancing on the edge of the abyss.

Such ass sucking over a long boring movie.

Hey remember where we were and what we were doing 50 years ago tonight?

10 minute standing Os and pretty much rave reviews from critics and viewers are an awful lot of Tarantino fanboys, fagboy.

"10 minute standing Os?" Yeah, sure. The only standing at the showing I was at was people standing up quickly to leave. The movie is a long-winded, ponderous bore. It's weird that QT's fans are so invested in defending him and his movies. It's like they've attached their self-esteem to him.

You're projecting a hell of a lot. Also, it got that ovation at Cannes. Granted every film there seems to get a protracted standing ovation.

Also got an ovation at his screening at the Cinerama Dome before the official premiere.

I was going to post about R278.

I was gonna pose the question "why?" Why attack people, and insult them, because they like a movie that you don't care for? Why endlessly attack the filmmaker?;Granted, QT has made mistakes, bit he's owned up to them, and been forgiven by the most aggrieved party, Uma Thurman. Why be so angry over people enjoying themselves?

But, then I happened to check my "ignored" list. I realized I've "ignored" this poster many times, and he seems to always come back with a different IP. There were HUNDREDS of ignored posts from him. Most of them insulting other people for enjoying something that he doesn't like. My face must have looked as horrified as Shelly Duvall going through Jack's repetitive manuscript in The Shining. This person must spend his entire day on DL, ruining threads.

My first conclusion was that he's such a miserable human being that his only happiness is trying to make other people as miserable as he is.

My second conclusion is that he's just mentally ill. I hope he one day gets the help me needs.

And I hope this new registration process is able to eventually root him out and keep him off DL for good. it's amazing how one person single-handedly makes DL a much less fun place to come.

To be clear, I don't mind people not liking things I like, and I actually enjoy the opportunity to defend and/or explain why I love a piece of art or a performance.

I don't like a person actively trying to make me feel badly, embarrassed, or dumb over enjoying a movie/TV show or music. That when it becomes unfun and pointless.

And this person isn't even witty about it.

Hey, PattiFan, I don't know who you've been "ignoring" but it wasn't me. I don't think you understand how IPs work. Go ahead and ignore me. I don't care, but whatever idiot fantasy you have of me or any person making "HUNDREDS" of posts is all in your imagination. I despise Tarantino and the praise for this terrible movie, and all of his other movies to be truthful, is infuriating to me so I express it. Any other posts you're talking about need to be taken up with someone else.

R287 and R288, So it got a standing ovation at Cannes and another at the screening HE ATTENDED. Yeah, that really sounds representative of objective audience reaction.

I didn't bring up the Cannes ovation to indicate audience reaction. I brought it up to refute your following claim that ovations even occurred:

[quote]"10 minute standing Os?" Yeah, sure. The only standing at the showing I was at was people standing up quickly to leave.

People stood to cheer the film.

R293, Cannes is your evidence that "people stood to cheer the film," huh? A staged, industry event where standing and cheering is expected? Okay, nitwit, cling to that, but here's a little friendly advice: that prostitute you pay to have sex with you who says you're great in bed? Don't use her as a reference. She's about as real as a Cannes standing ovation.

You said people didn't stand. People did stand. That's literally my only point, but go off, as they say.

I heard that after the Cannes screening there was talk of further editing. In the final cast list, I noticed that opposite Tim Roth’s name was the word (CUT). Does anyone know about that?

Or any other changes?

Yeah, I'm curious about that as well. I heard that he also added scenes of Sharon, which makes me wonder just how little of her was in the Cannes cut.

I also thought the Tim Roth (CUT) credit was strangely sweet. Like, sorry dude you were cut, but you're a Tarantino regular so you deserve credit in some respect. James Marsden was also cut from the film, but received no such credit.

This movie was well-acted and had great cinematography, but it was an overrated snooze fest. It had no direction and the actors pretty much chewed scenery.

LA Times

Oh lord god in hell this QT troll is exhausting! R290 the movie was brilliant! Stop engaging this disturbed individual, PattiFan! The girl obviously has many issues! They are written all over this thread. You are too articulate to engage this trash

[quote]This movie was well-acted and had great cinematography, but it was an overrated snooze fest

Nah was never bored, but good gracious "The Hateful Eight". All that money to shoot in 70MM and it was Celluloid Sominex.

I'm not QT fan, but I watched it twice. It's a beautiful movie. The actors look great, 1969 LA looks great and believable. I didn't read any spoilers, but once you figure out what the story is, there is this undercurrent of dread throughout. Then the twist happens and you realize that this is the ultimate Hollywood story of a star on the rise and a star falling set in an alternate universe. I can totally see why this film has Oscar buzz.

Directing and Pitt are locks for now.

R300, go fellate the tailpipe of a mack truck. This is an open forum and everybody who posts here doesn't have to love this movie like you mindless, fawning Tarantino kiss-asses. If you can overpraise the movie, I can criticize it just as strongly. Deal with it, nitwit.

R295, Hey, moron, I also said people stood up (to get out of the theater fast) so your "point" was useless and not worth making. I was mocking the idea that it was earning standing Os from audiences. Cannes and an industry screening don't count.

Blocked r305

You can yammer nto silence.

This movie had no storyline and was rambling to tie up an ending. All this movie is is a love letter to LA. QT spent a lot of money getting the right look and feel for this picture, but he forgot to add the story.

Have we discussed the fact that Nicholas Hammond (Doug Simpson from the Brady Bunch and Friedrich from The Sound of Music) plays director Sam Wanamaker?

[quote]This movie had no storyline

I think that storyline was about two actors at critical stages in their careers trying to navigate their way in Hollywood. Rick Dalton was on his way down and looking for a second act. Rick was trying to figure out where he belonged in this new world. Like the scene in the makeup trailer and when he was talking to little girl. Sharon's star was on the rise, but she wasn't a household name yet. She was in Valley of the Dolls, but she was neither the girl from Peyton Place nor Patty Duke.

My thoughts are my own, but I'm sure others have different ideas on what the storyline was.

R309, would Tate ever have been a household name? I don't have an opinion on her talent, but she was certainly beautiful. Her connection to Polanski would have helped, but what are the chances that that marriage would lasted more than another year or so?

I think she might have made a minor splash in movies but ended up with a career in television. Perhaps she might have had her own show at some point in her thirties - like Angie Dickinson, but 10 years younger.

Tate had the look of an ingenue, but she was 26 at the time of the murders. In terms of a movie-star career, she was approaching the now-or-never point.

R310, in the alternate universe of this movie I don't think Sharon's marriage would have lasted much longer. And I also agree with you that she would have ended up on TV. Probably an Aaron Spelling show. One of those jiggle shows or maybe even a primetime soap.

[quote] terms of a movie-star career, she was approaching the now-or-never point.

Which goes back to the story of this movie. She and Rick were on similar paths just reverse. He needed one more break to give him his second wind. She needed the break that would make her a movie star. The difference was that Rick was jaded and had lost hope. Sharon was wasn't jaded and was hopeful of what her future would bring, even if she had to goose it along a little bit.

Rick got hope at the end. It's unclear to me what would become of Sharon.

R310 and R311

It is all speculation. Sharon's character wasn't developed enough to know too much about her other than she was the actress wife to a top director, who had dirty feet much like the hippie.

(What was QT trying to say with that, I do not know)

Since this isn't high art, I will take it at face value.

Rick was a working actor trying to secure his next gig. There was no strategy to rise beyond his status, although he alluded to it. What was stated by Brad's character was that if Rick wasn't working, he was out of work.

In the meantime, the movie meandered along showing beautiful shot after shot. It was moving at a snail's pace to arrive at whatever the majority of people thought it arrived at the end of the movie.

Who is the little girl with the teddy bear in the poster?

Sharon was a semi-star, only because of death and marriage to the pedo. . Unlike Marilyn, her movie "career" was shit. Valley of the Dolls?

Had she lived, and after Roman dumped her she would have been lucky to marry a doctor in Encino.

The girl with the bear on the poster looks like Julia Butters' character. Perhaps there's a deleted scene where we see her off set or something.

R314 Wrong. She was an up and coming star and widely thought of as one of the most beautiful in Hollywood. Her performance on VOTD was the only positive aspect of the film noted by critics. If the marriage hadn't lasted she likely would have remarried another director or Hollywood exec. She was friends with many A Listers (musicians, actors, etc ) and firmly entrenched in the Hollywood scene.

It's really a shame that Tarantino had to mar his otherwise touching and immersive film with that revenge porn at the end. Of course everyone hates the fucking Manson family. So that makes it fun to mutilate and torture them. Nope.

He obviously has some real mental issues. How many times does he have to set characters up as awful just so we can revel in them being brutally killed? Couldn't he have got past that this one fucking time?

Yes, of course I completely understand that this is a fairy tale (Once Upon A Time) in which the murdered Sharon Tate survives the night -- and about Hollywood's ability to make what we want to see come true, but it wasn't necessary to fire a flamethrower or literally bash multiple womens' faces in to achieve that.

A man also had his face bashed in, r318.

“Multiple bashing”

I only saw two, Mary.

Brad Pitt's body sure is incredible for a 55+ year old. In some frames his face still looks boyish - in others, he looks rather 'hard' - although that could be the character.

I didn't like Leo's character that much - the accent was too distracting and unnecessary. The ending was pure Tarantino - and a bit over the top. I hate gore, so it was hard to watch.

Really liked the film - it was a beautiful LA timepiece. Don't think it should get Best Pic, but Best Director I could see. Pitt should get a nod.

A very strange and interesting film - I have never seen anything like it. It was very good, but not best of all time.

r319 and r320 are sad living testaments to the decline of wit in the gay community. Really? Is that the best? Ugh.

I haven’t seen the movie yet (I’m in Europe), but I thought the soundtrack was disappointing. Very one-note, and (with the exception of the radio commercials) not evocative of the late 60s.

[quote] literally bash multiple womens' faces

Isn't that the ultimate in equality? A woman should be able to get her face bashed in, just like a man. Or is that not where we're headed?

The soundtrack is great- you need to hear it in the theater, although the missing 2 songs are disappointing.

R318 types hysterical frau.

Murderous cunts got incinerated and their heads bashed in. Poetic justice.

It’s a movie, not real life. And if it was real life, everyone would cheer at those murderous cunts got what they deserved.

I enjoyed this movie, it was a bit long but it was a really amusing deconstructed Western. I loved the meta-ness of it and the meticulous nostalgia trip it took me on.

[quote]Her performance on VOTD was the only positive aspect of the film noted by critics.

Fuck you R317.

r325 I believe there are more than two songs missing from the official soundtrack (judging by a screenrant article I read), like the ones by The Mamas & the Papas, The Association and the Fifth Dimension. I wish the soundtrack had more harmony/sunshine pop, because that was a very LA-type of sound in the late 60s.

I'm pretty sure it's just the M&P and the Stones that are missing. Will have to pay more attention the 5th time, lol.

R320, multiple doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Does any other director garner this much arguing between movie goers?

Christopher Nolan has his detractors, but they’re not as numerous or passionate as Tarantino’s detractors.

I see The Most passion from the Tarantino crowd. Either for or against him, they are the passion fueled.

I'm not a QT detractor. I'm actually a fan, but I hated this film.

I’m with the poster who thinks Sharon would have ended up in Aaron Spelling productions. A Jill Munroe or Krystal Carrington.

[quote]Tarantino's foot fetish is getting tiresome too.

If he needs more foot models, I am available.

[quote]Brad Pitt's body sure is incredible for a 55+ year old. In some frames his face still looks boyish - in others, he looks rather 'hard' - although that could be the character.

And cool he hasn't covered himself in ugly tattoos like his ex-wife has.

So is QT only into female feet, or does he do male feet as well?

[quote]I'm not a QT detractor. I'm actually a fan, but I hated this film.

Same. I loved "Pulp Fiction", "Django Unchained" and "Inglourious Basterds". This movie though had issues.

[quote]So is QT only into female feet, or does he do male feet as well?

You get elongated shots of Leo’s feet as he floats on a raft in the pool.

What’s do Brad’s feet look like?

Feet.

Would the producers need to get clearance from the estates / agents for the use of Bruce Lee, Sharon Tate and other dead famous people (names, images, stories)? Or are they in the public domain and okay to use as they are fictionalised versions of themselves?

Any Hollywood lawyers able to chime in on this?

awesome ending !!! ev one cheered, really kool. if only it had happened that way.....sigh

I saw it twice. No cheers in the theater. These paid PR trolls are exhausting.

So of course your experience was the same at every showing of the movie, all over the world r346

Are your sure that your hearing aids batteries were working at the time gramps?

I wish I was being paid! Cheers and laughs every time.

The trolls are so RIGHT ON TOP of comments. Hmmmmm

R349 has made 18 comments in this thread, most of them bitching about "PR people"

Paranoid dementia is a terrible thing

[QUOTE]The dog was the best thing in the movie. And, Dakota Fanning as scary Squeaky Fromme.

She reminded me of Kate Winslet

The ass kissing commenter above has made 88 (!!!) fucking pr posts pushing this movie. Fuck off. If you aren’t being paid, you’re a mentally ill.

Gramps at r352 obviously doesn't know to use ignoredar, or else he would see that I’ve made 5 posts in this thread.

He’s also made many posts in the other OUATIH thread, complaining, you guessed, PR shills. What is this sad cunts problem? I’m guessing Quentin Tarantino rejected you in the West Hollywood Macy’s restroom.

[quote]I'm not a QT detractor. I'm actually a fan, but I hated this film.

What did you hate? The whole thing or just the ending?

R353 Give the “Gramps” stuff a rest. There are people of all ages here. You just make yourself sound like an idiot.

No one gets upset about being called gramps, except wizened old coots r355.

And r352 is definitely a senile paranoid old non respected elder.

Boy, the babies are getting uppity today.

We eldergays know life is going to smack the arrogance out of them sooner or later.

When I read the spoiler for the ending that Sharon Tate and friends live, I immediately thought of the Polish film Korczak about the educator who ran a orphanage in the Warsaw ghetto and perished in Treblinka with the children he cared for. Spoiler for the film, it ends with the train on it's way to the concentration camp and then it mysteriously uncouples from the train and drifts to a stop as the rest of it goes forward. The doors open and Korczak and the children spill out into the rural country side, free and joyful, it is completely a wish fulfillment. It was controversial at the time, from a NYTimes article:

Its concluding 30 seconds of fantasy have become the focal point of a bitter assault on the movie by French critics, some of whom viewed it as an attempt by Poles to throw a rosy wash over their own complicity, or indifference, to the genocide of Jews. By contrast, Israeli critics praised the ending as a symbol of hope, and Mr. Wajda (pronounced VIE-da) said the country's Ministry of Education had added the film to the required school curriculum.

I was wondering besides these two are there other films based on historical events that flip the narrative to make a happier ending then what really happened. There have been a few mentions of Inglorious Bastards doing something like that, but I wasn't sure if it was based on real people or actual historical events.

Before us “babies” receive our comeuppance, you’ll be dead r357

The name of the movie sort of clues you in that what you're seeing is a fairy tale and in all fairy tales the good guys live happily ever after. He drops clues throughout that what you're watching is some alternate reality. I didn't pick up on many of them at the first viewing, but did on the second viewing.

Not likely, dipshit. It’ll happen sooner than you think.

[quote]The name of the movie sort of clues you in that what you're seeing is a fairy tale and in all fairy tales the good guys live happily ever after.

Only a "baby" would interpret it like that. Us elders remember Sergio Leone and his films "OUAT in the West" and "OUAT in America" which were not known for their happy endings.

r358, I'm assuming you've not seen Inglourious Basterds -- the ending completely re-writes history as it relates to World War II.

Finally saw it last night, loved. I am one of those kids who grew up watching those TV shows in the 60s, while reading my mother's movie magazines and her copy of "Helter Skelter." Thought QT evoked the time perfectly. Spahn Ranch as weird and malevolent as I pictured it. Wish he'd done a little more with the Laurel Canyon music scene; I thought for example that Michelle and Cass were prominent characters, but they were in it for like four seconds. Interesting that Charlie himself appears for about 30 seconds. James Stacy was an interesting character to highlight; I remember reading about his horrific accident and being very upset about it.

How the fuck did Lena Dunham flash Brad? She was wearing a tunic. She must have basically stripped.

OT but I looked up the guy who played the "gay kid" on Curb Your Enthusiasm and...he might be the Sharon Tate Troll

Sorry, forgot linkage

Does Lens appear retarded and slack-jawed in all her 'acting' and appearances?

She looked awful.

But she didn’t chap my ass as much as that method acting brat kid.

[QUOTE]he might be the Sharon Tate Troll

OMG, there's a Sharon Tate troll ?

[quote]But she didn’t chap my ass as much as that method acting brat kid.

She gave the best performance in the movie. She might even be nominated.

R370 Yes, and she’s a damn mess. She trolled the entire Margot Robbie thread talking about how ugly Sharon is

Almost $200 million

Has Polanski commented at all on the movie?

I just read that Leo is worth $245 Million. Damn.

No, but Susan Dey loved it.

Just finished watching this. I absolutely LOVED it. It looked absolutely beautiful, as did Brad and Leonardo, and the whole thing flew by. I was surprised at how funny it was. I noticed about two thirds of the way through that there was a distinct lack of Tarantino's trademark violence... And then along came the hippy killing scene. Brad Pitt repeatedly smashing that woman's face in was absolutely brutal, but I also found it quite cathartic. Those fuckers deserved it.

This'll be one of those films I come back to regularly, like Kill Bill. Thanks, foot fetish man! x

Also, I didn't even recognise Lens Dunham in this, for which I'm quite grateful. x

When I saw the film back in July I was relatively disappointed, but i watched it again a couple weeks ago and seriously fell in love with it. Even made the video montage below in honor of the film. Feel free to check it out!

Hey, nice R379! What did you think of the ending? x

r41 I agree with you and everything you said about QT reminds me of everything I've said about Spike Lee.

R380 The ending was beautiful. Rick telling Cliff he's a good friend was so moving, and Sharon inviting Rick up to the house was so sweet! I saw it ultimately as a film about appreciation. It's clear that Tarantino loved actors like Rick Dalton. He spent a good deal of his career giving them juicy parts in his genre pictures. Here, he's saying, "Your work was valuable," and Sharon's invitation is a cosign.

Additionally, Rick and Cliff inadvertently saved Sharon's life! It's like Tarantino created these two characters to distract the Mansonites from carrying out their grisly deeds in the house up the hill. There's this deep dramatic irony at play where we assume Sharon's invitation could lead to a Polanski introduction, which could ultimately help Rick's career, but Rick already did her the impossible kindness of slaying her would-be killers. He did more for her than she ever could for him, and neither of them will ever know.

Good shit!

Was only barely familiar with Sharon Tate, so changing the ending to fiction didn't bother me in the slightest.

Plus, there was no way that in 2019 metoo, that a movie that ends with a pregnant woman being killed could be shown.

I saw this movie three times in the theaters, and looking forward to seeing it again on TV.

There are some movies that appeal to me, and I want to share them with my friends and family, so I see them more than once at the movies, such as The Kings Speech, A League of their Own, the original Star Wars, Ghost, Rocky Horror Picture Show... these are movies that I take people to, telling them you got to see this.

Glad this thread got bumped, as it reminded me to pre-order the DVD (out December 10) for me and my partner for Christmas. Owning the physical disc is something I reserve only for favorites, and this one qualifies!

[quote]Glad this thread got bumped, as it reminded me to pre-order the DVD (out December 10) for me and my partner for Christmas. Owning the physical disc is something I reserve only for favorites, and this one qualifies!

The Special Edition discounted to $56.99 from the original list price of $75.99!

When the two film critics for the associated press released their list of top movies of the year earlier this week, one of them said this was a movie you could watch over and over, and that's exactly how I feel as well.

Lens Dumdum was good casting as a manson chick. I mean when you think about it, Lens is basically an ugly dirty misfit.

Bump for the asshole who felt he had to start a new thread

Well r385 and r386 aren’t transparent PR people 🙄🙄🙄🤣🤣🤣🤣

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood .. I sucked bitches feet.

Once Upon at Time in Hollywood.. I licked Brad's boots

I licked his ass

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood money shot,

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.. Angie had six toes

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.. Leo Di Cornio

The quality of Tarantino's movies has been on a straight downward trajectory from the beginning. Each movie worse than the next. Each more needlessly drawn out, juvenile and overly talky than the last. This movie was mind-numbingly pointless and the length was grotesquely irresponsible and unnecessary. I thought he couldn't get any more pompous, empty and offensively self-indulgent than HATEFUL 8 but I was wrong. He topped himself or "bottomed" himself (btw, he probably would if he could; his egotism and self-love borders on Trump-like pathology). His supporters are either delusional, stupid or shamefully dishonest.

I liked the soundtrack and the costumes. But the wig they slapped on Damien Lewis! Holy shit, it looked like they picked it up at a discount warehouse.

I watched this for the first time a week ago, and in the end was just so-so on it. Honestly, pretty much every scene with Leo in it was boring to me. On the other hand, I really enjoyed the parts set at the Spahn ranch and generally around the Manson stuff. But I did sort of think at the same time that the movie was too bogged down in the middle, and didn't really have a point. It seems very much like the type of movie a director can get away with when they've become successful and are no longer questioned on what they are doing so much, and so can feel a bit bloated and aimless.

I'm quite surprised because until recently Kill Bill was the only Tarantino I had seen, and I LOVE those movies. They're so bright and over-the-top and cartoony and wear their influences so proudly that even if you don't recognise a reference exactly, you can still get the gist. They're fun. Then my housemate, who loves Tarantino, decided I needed to watch more. First we watched Inglorious Basterds, which honestly I didn't like that much. It felt too obvious, too simplistic and too easy. It would've worked more for me if it had been a revenge plot against Christopher Waltz' character and some of his goons than an all out Nazi revenge fantasy. Yeah, anyone would be happy to see Nazis get their comeuppance, but it wasn't satisfying in any way. I feel like I'm the only person who feels like this because everyone else raves about it. Too obvious is the way I would describe it, as I say.

And then we watched Once Upon a Time, which I liked better than Inglorious Basterds, but still, as I say above, didn't do a lot for me. Either I was really enjoying scenes, or was bored stiff. The ending of this one could likewise be considered too simplistic as well, but it was funnier and I wasn't expecting it. I was nervous seeing those Manson members hanging around, but then when Linda Kasabian drives off in the car I suddenly realised: "oh hang on, something different is happening here", so I was interested to see what would change.

Perhaps he will be a one-hit wonder for me, or perhaps I need to try more of his stuff?

I'm surprised your friend not start you off with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Those are the two that you need to see.

Yeah, it's interesting, either she was going with what she could find available on streaming services, or maybe she was showing his worst first? (I kid, because she loved both of those movies). I actually did see Pulp Fiction come to think of it, years ago as a teenager, but I don't remember much because my cousin and her friend just kept rewinding the part where they accidentally shoot the guy in the car over and over and laughing.

I'd be keen to see Jackie Brown, mostly 'cause I love Pam Grier.

Margot Robbie needed Sharon Tate's trademark make up. She looked nothing like her, but this wasn't a biography, so I guess was intentional, like Steve McQueen shaggy wig.

I was born in 1960 and grew up in Culver CIty, CA until I was seven, early 1968. That's when my dad got a job offer in Phoenix, AZ, so we moved there. Shortly after we arrived, it was clear that this was no SoCal. My mom hated it most, so every summer of 1968, 1969, and 1970 she would take my brother and I back to LA, the family Chevy Impala speeding through the desert until we reached Blythe, where we'd eat at Denny's and my older brother kissed the California ground once. LA would go about a week, then we would get back in the car and drive to San Francisco, my mom's hometown. Then the drive back to Phoenix.

My mom loved to drive, and I wasn't spoiled with toys, but she LOVED taking my brother and I places, and both her and my dad were staunch liberal democrats. We moved six times by the time I was in 8th grade (four different elementary school grades one-six), and everywhere we lived, my brother and I always were the ones with he 'cool' parents. So all of that late 60s atmosphere done so well in Once Upon a Time, I remember it fairly well. I was just at that age where my memory kicked in, and it's always functioned well, esp with trivial things and minute details. I loved the movie. I only wish I knew who Lens Dunham played. I didn't see her name until the end credits.

There is something really interesting about those couple of years in California, and it's fun to watch it portrayed, even though as I mentioned above, it wasn't a favourite film for me. But there's something about the converging of the Summer of Love and the idealism of that time with something dark and sinister; the Manson Family, Zodiac killings, disappearing hitchhikers etc, that is quite interesting. This movie in a way, I guess, suggests an alternate future where the dream didn't necessarily die.

Lena Dunham played the chick who first confronts Brad Pitt at Spahn's Ranch.

Not at the house, that was Squeaky Fromme played by Dakota, the one out on the street

R406. the only one I can recall is the girl that Pitt picked up at the bus stop on Sunset, thin with long curly hair. That wasn't Lens.

R407 did you watch the movie???? She’s right there

Not to put too fine a point on it, but she was the fat girl at the Spahn ranch

R400, Don't worry. You're not missing much. Tarantino is the most overrated hack in movies of the last 30 years. His puerile fanboys are pathetic (as bad as those Dark Knight fanboy losers). For them to hear any criticism of Hackantino causes them an existential breakdown. He rips off better movies by better directors and it appeals to psychologically arrested adolescents who don't know any film history but get off on any kind of graphic violence, and critics who get to play spot-the-reference so they can show off their film trivia knowledge. Screw both those groups. They're assholes.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen... watched it with three people and we all agreed - a total bomb, overrated by the Academy. When the hippie in the pool gets the blowtorch, you just crack up laughing. It's long and boring and none of the actors should have nominated at all.

This movie almost seems like a whitewashing of the whole Manson saga. There were a lot of people in Hollywood back then who knew Manson. Even to this day, most celebrities who were alive back then refuse to talk about the murders. And Sharon hated Voytek and Abigail, who were both drugged-out layabouts.

The ranch was the best part, so much tension for no real reason, and Dakota Fanning was the most scary character. All the declining actor part was boring, just an excuse to present DiCaprio as lead and Pitt as support, when really the last one stole de show.

R413, I totally agree with all you said, that's how I felt too.

I also feel Hollywood often finds movies about itself more interesting than the rest of us.

Rented this movie from RedBox a couple of nights ago. I got half way through before giving up on it.

Should have won a Razzie. A total bomb.

Too long and I’m so over Hollywood’s fascination with Charles Mansion. And Quentin can’t change THAT ending no matter what. It left me feeling sad and empty.

I’m ok with Brad Pitt getting the Oscar though. His performance was worthy.

Bump. I'm rewatching now. Idle thoughts: How long did the Rick Dalton-Francesca Capucci marriage last? Did a grateful Roman Polanski end up casting his heroic next-door neighbor Rick in one of his films, thus changing the trajectory of Rick's career? Who might he have played in "Chinatown"?

Looking back, I think it was too upbeat. I would’ve liked something more dark and mysterious.

I see your point R419, it's just every movie made about the Manson family has been incredibly dark, not a single light moment to be had. This was as upbeat as anyone could get with that particular subject.

If you know the Manson story pretty well (I was 16 when it happened), the film resonates. It drips nostalgia as I've walked Westwood, driven the canyons, been on the lots. Tarantino followed the story pretty closely but I can't say when he didn't without spoilers. Let's just say I was pretty nervous during the Spahn scenes. I also noticed that James Stacy was given a good role and his life story might deserve its own movie.

R420 I meant “dark” as in a cross between “Mulholland Drive” and “The Long Goodbye”. The movie could’ve focused on the dark underbelly of 1960s LA city life.

Btw, I do really like Tarantino’s inclusion of jingles and commercials. I always thought they were a major part of the “sound world” of the late 60s.

James Stacy had an interesting story, but so did Pete Duel. The Rick Dalton character really seems like Duel to me, especially in the scene where he's violently berating himself in his trailer for his alcoholism. He's a tortured guy in many ways.

Boy, you're right, R424.

And Pete Duel was dead by 1971, lending credence to my friend's theory that all the leads in the film are actually in a Bardo state--i.e. dead but thinking they're alive. So, the Brad Pitt character would be the guy who went to Spahn Ranch and was found dead later, allegedly killed by Tex Watkins.

R425 Whoa. Was that in the Helter Skelter book? It rings a bell but I can't recall the details. But during my re-watch today, I did wonder what would have happened to Cliff had Tex made it back in time.

I had a similar theory when the movie was released. The last scene looks like DiCaprio’s character has finally entered the gates of heaven (or hell) to join the other dead.

I didn't know the little girl actress was based on Jodie Foster. I never realized her career went all the way back to those old TV Westerns.