MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > Well, this was AWESOME! SPOILER ALERT

Well, this was AWESOME! SPOILER ALERT

posted 3 years ago by whynotwriteme (7328)
14 replies | jump to latest

I held off watching this, because I was certain I would be disappointed. I've been disappointed in a BIG way by everything Tarantino has done after Jackie Brown, but this time, he has redeemed himself. Gone are all the masturbatory, self indulgent Tarantino hallmarks that ruined his later films for me.

OUATIH is still identifiable as a Tarantino movie, but his style has really matured. He's not so full of himself anymore. The film is not anywhere near a self-indulgent mess like his other recent films. Sure, there are lots of pop-culture references as usual, but in the context of a Hollywood story, it works and is not a distraction. It helps that I am a huge fan of 60s and 70s Westerns and the Manson story and that whole era in general is fascinating to me.

I'm still somewhat amazed that Tarantino made me like Brad Pitt so much, and to a lesser extent, Leonardo DiCaprio, two actors I only really enjoyed before in Pitt's Fury and DiCaprio's The Revenant. The two of them make a great buddy team, even approaching the likes of Newman and Redford. I'd love to see these guys do a remake of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, or The Sting!

There were so many moments I really enjoyed in this that it is hard to list them all. Standouts were the Bruce Lee fight, Sharon Tate's gleeful trip to the theater to watch herself in a Matt Helm movie, the creepy scenes at Spahn Ranch (especially Bruce Dern and the bit when the hippie freaks are shouting abuse at Cliff as he walks to his car, and the beating he gives to the moronic Clem,) and the touching last moments where

SPOILER ALERT

Rick goes into the Polanski house to meet Sharon Tate and friends, whose lives have been unwittingly saved, and presumably makes fresh contacts to jumpstart his Hollywood career. My eyes actually got moist at that point, thinking about Sharon Tate, her baby, and the others surviving.

END SPOILER

I loved all the great period music, the classic cars and the general mood of the late 60s, which I barely remember, having been just a toddler at the time. This movie makes me wish I had a time machine. Actually, this movie IS a two hour time machine!

The only thing I would have changed would be to integrate the Manson story with the Rick & Cliff story a little more, add a few more scenes with Charles Manson, and, while it was cool, the flamethrower scene at the end was a little bit goofy.

I really hope Tarantino doesn't retire as he has said he planned to. He's just hitting his stride, now. If Tarantino keeps on in this direction, I would be willing to take back everything bad I ever said about his crapfests like Death Proof and claim him as my favorite director working today.

[–] Zilkin (401) 3 years ago

Well in my opinion this movie is the weakest one he made. However even a bad Tarantino movie is still good. This was not a typical Tarantino movie in a way, violence only happens at the end, there are no memorable dialogues and in my opinion it is boring and too long.

[–] whynotwriteme (7328) 3 years ago

You think it's weaker than DEATH PROOF!?! How in the hell can that be?

[–] BillySlater (4126) 3 years ago

I agree this was weak. All the Sharon Tate stuff watching herself in the theatre, pointless and boring. They could have had Margot Robbie just in the last 5 minutes of the film and it probably would have been a lot better.

[–] whynotwriteme (7328) 3 years ago

It's because you probably are not really familiar with Sharon Tate and have no sense of affection for her. Maybe if you were, say, 12 years old in the late 70s and fell in love with her while watching "The Fearless Vampire Killers" on late night TV, and wanted to find out more about her, and then to your horror, read she had been brutally murdered years ago by a pack of hippie freaks, you would appreciate what Tarantino was doing in that scene.

If you were old enough to know who all the people are in this movie, and what they were all about, and have a degree of feeling for the late 60s you would appreciate OUATIH far more.

[–] BillySlater (4126) 3 years ago

I don´t think being a Sharon Tate fan should be a prerequisite to enjoy a "fictional" movie that is barely even about her.

[–] whynotwriteme (7328) 3 years ago

There's plenty more to enjoy in this even if you don't give a damn about Sharon Tate. That scene was just Tarantino's little "love letter" to her.

[–] BillySlater (4126) 3 years ago

It´s not that I don´t give a damn about Sharon Tate, its that her whole "arc" in the film ruined the pacing of it. If they gave her character more than just irrelevant fluff, or even mostly excluded her altogether, I probably would have enjoyed the film much more.

[–] whynotwriteme (7328) 3 years ago

I do admit that the stories could have been integrated a bit more, but I think Tarantino viewed the Manson victims in an almost "sacred" light and didn't want to put them in scenes of his own invention. I would have loved to see more interaction and conflict between Cliff and Rick and the Mansons. As it is, it's more like several entirely separate stories that converge at the end. In spite of this, I consider it the best new movie I have seen in years. Probably the best post-2010 movie ever.

[–] BillySlater (4126) 3 years ago

Yeah, I get it and respect your opinion even though I don´t share it. For me, QT has not been at his best since Inglorious Basterds.

[–] Windsaar (323) 3 years ago

I agree.
After watching OUATIH three times; wondering if I had just not payed enough attention, missed something or if it was one of those movies you need to watch several times over to truly appreciate, I decided that (IMO) it's one of his weaker films.

Which is a shame, because I had been following the production updates and was looking forward to seeing Pitt and DiCaprio together (in a Tarantino movie, no less).

I think Death Proof, Hateful 8 and OUATIH are his three weakest films. Not everyone will agree with me, probably not even most...I suppose that's the nature of personal opinions lol.

***SPOILERS***

I think that most of the storylines were both at the same time too longwinded individually, and had a hard time meshing together cohesively as a whole...which ultimately led to an almost 3 hour movie feeling more like a 5 hour movie.

I agree that gone were some of Tarantino's trademarks, like memorable dialogue and storylines that flow seamlessly.

As for "all the masturbatory, self indulgent Tarantino hallmarks that ruined his later films..", there were PLENTY of bare feet to go around; from clean/manicured ones all the way down to disgusting/dirty ones. He really went all out in this one lol.

He also crammed it with a ton of his usual pop-culture references and easter-eggs, but I agree that in the context of a "Hollywood themed movie", it works.

I was unaware he was planning on retiring. I don't see it happening just yet, personally, but I could obviously be very wrong.
I just think that he perfected his stride a few decades ago, and has been kind of just trudging on through the time since. Some hits, some misses, nothing terribly groundbreaking.
I think that since OUATIH won so many accolades, he'll probably stay in the game, at least for a little while longer.

Nobody has ever (or will ever be) a bigger Tarantino fan than Tarantino himself... so maybe he'll want to wrap it up on a "high note" while everyone else is gushing over him as well.

[–] Kowalski (62698) 3 years ago

I HAVE ENJOYED ALL OF TARANTINO'S FILMS...JACKIE BROWN BEING MY FAVORITE...OUATIH ISRIGHT UP THERE...I AGREE WITH ALL YOUR WORDS.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8418) 3 years ago

Tell me, what does it mean to be a "fan" of the Manson story?

Also, you were "disappointed in a BIG way" by Inglourious Basterds?

[–] whynotwriteme (7328) 3 years ago

It means I carve a big swastika between my eyes and take lots of LSD and write hippie slogans in blood on the walls of my victims, of course.

I think you misread that line. "It helps that I am a huge fan of 60s and 70s Westerns and the Manson story and that whole era in general is fascinating to me."

Let me divide the concepts. I am a huge fan of 60s and 70s westerns. The Manson family and that whole era in general is fascinating to me.

Yeah. I was disappointed in Basterds. Inglourious Basterds was a Tarantino film, not a real War film. The people in it act like no people on earth except those appearing in Tarantino films. I don't really like Tarantino's movies that use the genre only as a framework for a Tarantino movie. I like him better when he is more restrained and allows the genre of the film to dominate his own directorial style. OUATIH was one, but maybe only because the "Hollywood story" genre in this case and his personal style are so closely linked. Regardless, I liked it. Basterds was too quirkily Tarantino-ish. He should have stuck more closely to the source: Old Italian-made "Macaroni Combat" movies.

[–] Zilkin (401) 3 years ago

I liked Death Proof more because its a fun movie. It has a one eyed Kurt Russel in it, a sexi cheerleader and the best car chase in cinema with a real stuntwoman. It is supposed to be over the top and the movie has style. I think since the woman that did editing for Tarantino died, his movies became less focused characterwise and storywise.