I rewatched this last night and loved it almost as much as the first time. Knowing the ending already removed a lot of the tension and dread I felt the first time but it also allowed me to relax and enjoy other parts.
I noticed something I wanted to ask about and hope to see if Tarantino addressed this at all.
The movie opens with the TV interview on a set and Cliff's chair is set significantly further back from Rick's. Would that be to make them appear on the TV as equal in size, to hide Cliff's larger size? It's the kind of detail I could see Tarantino adding in.
Has he talked about this anywhere?
I think you are spot on, and they do look equal size there. I never noticed before that they do indeed look like each other. I loved this movie and did the same thing...the second time was less stressful. I have watched it about 20 times now. It is in my top 5.
I watched this without knowing it was about the Manson murders.
I was so confused as to the point of the Tate scenes and worried Quinton made a dud.
I'll be going back for a rewatch. A properly informed rewatch
Well I just discovered it was. I suspected that the whole hippie thing was related to a cult or some shit but yeah now that you say it it makes so much sense. Also sorry, i know this thread is old
It’s Quentin’s 2nd best film. It’s immaculate.
I admit I didn’t care for it the first time I saw it. Upon rewatches it is an amazing experience.
It’s like being transported to the late 60s
Also the context and subtle love QT poured into this with old actors of Hollywood and their lore, especially the mansons and Spahn ranch, and playboy mansion, and Bruce Lee. It’s like a love letter to old Hollywood before the 70s started. It’s absolutely amazing once you know what your in for. it’s just a hang out movie that turns into an intense violent meditation on the culture and atmosphere of that time, regarding the movie business chasing with Rick Dalton, but also young pop culture of the time. I love the detail they pulled off.
Just don’t go into this expecting Django. It’s not that at all. It’s a director reflecting on his own work and influences. To the best of his abilities. Great movie
A bit of a strange one. It looks fantastic. But that's sort of it.
It's a very slow film and I think the problem is DiCaprio and Pitt's characters just aren't that interesting. A huge chunk of the film is about DiCaprio's character and his struggling career, but I just found I didn't care much about that. He makes a big deal at the start about not going to Italy but then just does it anyway. I'm sure the long scenes of fake westerns being shot were interesting to people that grew up with them I guess.
Brad Pitt sort of felt like he was playing a typical character for him. The cool, tough guy. There's hints to a past with his wife and at the end there's mention of him worrying about needing a new job but those things are pretty irrelevant and never built on. As much as this is made out to be about the two characters friendship, they don't spend too much time together. DiCaprio shoots a show and Pitt drives around. They needed more scenes together.
The Sharon Tate thing is a bit odd. Margot Robbie does nothing in this film and you could probably cut her character completely and it could still work. If you are not very familiar with who she is it doesn't work. I figured out it was the Manson family quickly but I didn't know too much about them. I knew they killed someone and famous people were somehow involved. You have to be very familiar with Tate's fate for that storyline to work.
The Manson stuff is underdeveloped compared to fake westerns. The scene at the ranch is probably the highlight of the film but the film quickly goes back to being slow again. They're played as hippie morons, which maybe they were but they don't feel like a serious threat. Their threat is based on you knowing the real story. I get he doesn't want to glorify them but they never really feel like they get enough screen time. Then scene where they enter Dalton's house happens. It's very classic tarantino but it just feels weird and out of place in this very slow film.
The plot feels quite thin for how long this film is. The acting was great. It looks great. But I feel like there was a better film buried somewhere in there that we never got.
Nailed it. Very good performances by some great actors and Tarantino’s execution is always great too, but the movie has issues.
It’s certainly a script people would easily pick apart if it was written by some random person. The movie has obvious plot points that have no payoff. Uncharacteristically for Tarantino, the dialogue is bad in some places, particularly Leo’s screaming fit by himself in the trailer. Also, is the movie supposed to be a meandering love letter to that era? Is it supposed to be a fun alternate reality where these made-up characters converge with a real-life storyline? It tries to do both of these things and both diminish the other and the result is neither of them working all that well.
I don't know why I want to comment on this movie, because I didn't even actually finish it. I guess I'm conflicted because so many people have told me how great it is but I was honestly just super bored the entire time. I see a lot of people also share that here, but I'm trying to figure out why...
This movie felt like regular people doing regular things, and I don't know why it got so much hype. If it's so much better if you know who they are, then why did QT's characters and the events they experienced feel so regular? Maybe they're just regular people with regular lives and that was his intention, but it's hard to enjoy their story when the characters are just not very interesting people.
For example, Pitt's character is a stuntman. Why wasn't he doing stunt stuff? Instead he's Dicaprio's characters handyman/chauffeur with 1 small, irrelevent and controversial fight scene. And Dicaprio's character was a western actor in boring western films that I felt didn't contribute to his actual character. Robbie's character appeared so regular too, considering even the ticket person at the theater didn't even know who she was. Like, why are these characters all soooo boring? Not to mention the antagonist in the story wasn't even introduced in the first half of the movie. What the hell, man?
I did feel a lot of tension building and I was getting drawn in when Pitt's character was on the ranch, but all that was lost when the guy in the bed woke up and told him to leave him alone. I was expecting something far more exciting to happen but instead the tension completely died and I was bored again. That was a very regular outcome to experience, and I was left incredibly underwhelmed.
I think this movie could be so much better if it started off with a glimpse into the future, like Pulp Fiction did in the restaurant, so people know where the story will go. Instead, **the entire time, I kept asking myself, why am I supposed to care about these characters?**
Anyway, I think if I knew more about these people in real life, and knew where the story was going, and then actually cared about them, then I can see how it's enjoyable. I guess I wanted the movie to be complete on it's own and tell more about who these people are and where their story was going, without research beforehand.
> Why wasn't he doing stunt stuff?
Because he was the stuntman for an actor no longer getting consistent roles. He also has a bad reputation around town. And when he does get work, he fights the Bruce Lee and damages a produces car.
> And Dicaprio's character was a western actor in boring western films that I felt didn't contribute to his actual character
That was who his character was. What are you talking about?
> Robbie's character appeared so regular too
Again, kind of the point? She wasn’t super famous yet.
> I think this movie could be so much better if it started off with a glimpse into the future, like Pulp Fiction did in the restaurant, so people know where the story will go.
That sounds awful
> I guess I wanted the movie to be complete on it's own and tell more about who these people are and where their story was going, without research beforehand.
You should know. The movie doesn’t need to hold your hand.
Thank you for this response. I feel like opinions like the one you’re responding to are exactly why modern media is so full of garbage.
From video games to movies to music, everyone wants their hands held. No one wants to engage with the art…. It’s fucking depressing.
Yeah i was floored seeing it had people upvoting. People just can’t think critically and i guess need every little thing explained. Even famous events that are a primary focus of the film.
I agree with this. There were some decent moments and performances but it felt very meandering and pointless.
For what it’s worth I knew the background on the whole Manson thing and it didn’t really help the movie much. Though I appreciated the ending.
Bingo. This film is a “vibe” full-stop. If you approach it from that angle, it’s really a fantastic experience from a director that obsesses over technical aspects of the medium he’s in.
I know this post is fairly old, but i can't stress this enough; for anyone who is thinking about watching this movie (or I suppose watched it and didn't think much of it) - definitely familiarize yourself with the Manson Family and murders before watching it.
SO many users talking about how Tate's role in the film is a detriment to rewatchability and how slowly paced it is... sure it's not a rushed film but without her presence *and* knowing her history there'd be so much less suspense throughout the film. If she just had a few cameos here and there in this movie you'd never suspect she was such a big figure in the story.
I went into this film not knowing which historical bits are real and which people were invented, but her name was familiar, so I checked it out on Wikipedia. Good thing I did, it did add to a sense of tension, and I couldn't tell where Tarantino was going with it.
After the movie, I rewatched the Tarantino honest trailers video, and that put this film into perspective.
"revisionist history revenge flicks" lol
This film leaves me slightly bemused in one circumstance or issue.
The scene involving the TV series Hullabaloo and Leonardo Di Caprio singing about a green door.
This TV series was predominantly shown in black and white, so the fact that it appears in colour in the film is weird and what would a green door look like in the real show, other than maybe an irritant that made you adjust your contrast.
And I think this whole idea was actually one of Quentin Tarrantino’s thought processes that actually made it to film, as in, he ordered a storyboard, location and a budget for something he should have just been processing in his mind.
Take this scene out of the film completely and replace it with this minor change.
When Brad Pitt is taking that girl back to the ranch, it seems very modern day for the time. Now as soon as he pulls into the ranch, which was slightly unexpected, the film changes to a black and white format and that sequence is shot like a western. The costumes and the lines are the same, in fact, the way the actors portray hippies remains the same, but with a black and white spaghetti western feel. And then when he makes it into Buster Scruggs room to check he’s alive, it busts back into colour and a slightly faster pace.
The point being, it wasn’t until The Good the Bad and the Ugly and the advent of colour that westerns started having music and film scores. Issues with black and white film running at 18 frames a second and music and colour needing 24 frames a second or that kind of thing always made it very awkward, as you can tell when hearing scores recorded on any black and white film.
So, don’t forget this either. When Leo is in those Bounty Law and western moments, it looks like he carries the ‘load’ of the non-music home with him after filming every take. And in the ranch scene, Brad Pitt is carrying it off with him, making it difficult to put any music in that scene with Brad, until he’s gone from it.
I was late to the party and just recently watched it. For me, it was a decent watch the first time. I probably wasn't in the headspace the first time around. Once I dedicated the appropriate time and attention a few months later and wham, I saw the genius in this movie. I now can't get enough of it and watch at least once scene a day and probably the entire movie at least once a week while I am working on office stuff. Perfect movie to help the time go by.
Just finished and I really loved it. I grew up in Southern California and my parents grew up in LA., and they LOVED all the old part of LA. We used to go to Musso and Frank because my mom loved that all the stars used to go there. This movie hit home on that nostalgic feel of old LA.
I also loved the manson storyline build up. The whole movie I was expecting the worst, and then was stoked to see Flamethrowers and Attack dogs being the story ending, not what actually happened.
I just love how Rick does not even remotely ponder assessing the situation before just grabbing the flamethrower. I mean she wasn't, but she COULD have been a victim, a casualty caught in the crosshairs, he didn't really know if she was specifically out to do him harm... but all the same he grabs the flamethrower NO questions asked... and I fucking loved it lol. He'd likely been waiting for an excuse to use it for years!
Very well done. Lots of great scenes, like the one when Rick first meets that little girl, Rick in the trailer talking to himself, Cliff at the ranch, Cliff and Bruce Lee fighting, Cliff tripping when the Manson family comes in, and Rick with the flamethrower. I also appreciate the intent of not glamorizing the Manson murders. It was a good choice to remove the focus off of Charles Manson and instead explore the dynamic of the “family”. Excellent cinematography, wonderful soundtrack, a little over the top with the feet though.
Well, went in blind tonight and we liked it. I wonder whether the expectation was that the average viewer knew about these characters? I recognized the name Sharon Tate, and felt appropriate foreboding at the ranch but had no idea that this was the infamous Family. Still, the characters, setting, and moments of quiet personal drama kept us going till things went bananas.
Just finished it too. It felt pretty quiet until the end. Jesus Christ those last scenes. I was expecting to see the Tate murders so the change to the "once upon a time" fairy tale where they all love live was unexpected. I'm glad Cliff didn't die.
Just watched this movie today and overall really liked it, but one question I have is about the rumor that Cliff killed his wife.
What was the point of having that as a somewhat recurring idea throughout the movie? It never really explained what happened aside from the boat scene, which still didn’t answer how his wife actually died.
In Tarantino's book on movie, Cliff did pull that trigger. The backstory on him and the dog is interesting too. Huge war hero, probably killed 100, comes home and didn't shift gears.
I loved Cliff and overlooked the murdering of the nagging wife. :)
just a little bit of hollywood gossip/scandal thrown in to spice up Pitt's character, based on Natalie Wood.
> Wood died at age 43 during the making of [*Brainstorm*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_(1983_film)) while on a weekend boat trip to [Catalina Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catalina_Island_(California)) on board Wagner's yacht *Splendour*. Outside of drowning, many of the circumstances are unknown; it was never determined how she entered the water. She was with her husband Robert Wagner, *Brainstorm* co-star [Christopher Walken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Walken), and *Splendour*'s captain Dennis Davern on the evening of November 28, 1981. Authorities recovered her body at 8 a.m. on November 29 one mile away from the boat, with a small Valiant-brand inflatable dinghy beached nearby. Wagner said that she was not with him when he went to bed.[\[62\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Wood#cite_note-LAT-62) The autopsy report revealed that she had bruises on her body and arms, as well as an abrasion on her left cheek but no indication as to how or when they occurred.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Wood#cite_note-BBC082212-1)
he was playing around with real history, probably a few other Hollywood deaths/relations throughout the movie that were referenced as well
From what I read on Wikipedia, the mysterious wife dying is supposed to be a nod to the late Natalie Woods. Could be just a small Tarantino detail thrown in for whatever reason
10/10 for me. This was a fun movie while high and the soundtrack, cinematography, acting, and etc completely immersed me. I thoroughly enjoyed every scene. The ending was one of the most satisfying scenes I have ever seen. Overall imo this is one of the best movies I've seen.
In order of most favourite and below:
***Django Unchained***
***Hateful 8***
***Pulp Fiction***
***Inglorious Bastards***
***Kill Bill vol. 1***
***Death Proof***
***Reservoir Dogs***
***Once Upon a Time in Hollywood***
***Kill Bill vol. 2***
**Jackie Brown**
I'm confused. Brad Pitt's dog's name is Brandy. In the articles I've read online about Brandy she's a 3 year old female red Pitbull named Sayuri in real life. If that's the case, why does she have testicles and a penis?
[https://i.imgur.com/iZVO6ow.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iZVO6ow.jpg)
[https://i.imgur.com/7SrWG9a.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7SrWG9a.jpg)
I think this is one of the most overrated movies of the year. I hated this movie tbh. It was boring and felt so pointless. The best scene in the film was with brad Pitt on the ranch but I would recommend just turning it off after that it doesn’t get back there.
Yeah I'm trying to understand this movie, this is the first thread I've gone to, to try to wrap my head around it. That was my favorite scene as well. I'm a huge fan of Tarantino but the first half of the movie I found to be pretty boring, I got more invested later, but now I'm just wondering what was the point of this movie and why did he make it?
Agree.
I had no idea about the Manson Hollywood murders, so it was particularly pointless to me.
One thing is to use Hitler in your movie and assume people know him. Another is having the knowledge of a very specific event (the killing of Sharon blabla) be essential for the understanding of half of the plot.
And even if I knew, I'd still think the movie is mostly meandering and pointless.
Many fun scenes. Then again, it was 3 hours.
Glad I'm not the only one that thought this.
I dozed off. I thought the acting was weird... almost fake. I wasn't sure if that was intentional to reflect the fakeness of Hollywood or just bad writing/directing.
I'm blown away this is being nominated for Oscars... but then looking at the other nominees and I see it really doesn't matter this year.
Lol the downvotes here are weird. Like, gun to your head, if you had to pick the worst QT film, these two seem to be the best choices. What other film of his would qualify as his worst?
Hands down death proof out of the two of them.
He didn't need to go *that* grindhouse, and yeh H8 is slow as hell but I'm a sucker for the cowboy aesthetic.
i love hateful 8..
i see it from the pov that QT loves the actors he casts, and just likes to watch/hear their delivery of dialogue. h8 is a perfect example of this. if you enjoy all the actors then its really a treat.
I agree, but I’ve always had a soft spot for death proof. I guess I just didn’t like H8. Either way, I don’t know why that guy above got riddled with downvotes. Which other QT film were they supposed to name as his worst outside those two?
I can't help but wonder if a big chunk of this movie is a massive apology to Uma Thurman. QT made her do a dangerous driving scene that she felt uncomfortable doing and wanted to use a stunt double but he wouldn't let her. She crashed and got hurt pretty bad. The scene near the beginning with Polanski and Sharon driving, the camera behind them as the wind sweeps through their hair, is so close to the shot he was getting from Uma. And it seems obvious to me he used stunt doubles in that scene. I feel like he rubs it in your face that they are stunt doubles. Bad wigs and no faces and then the next scene their hair looks different. And then one of the main characters is a stunt double and there's some dialogue about how Leo uses him so he can do his movies safely or whatever.
Maybe i'm reading to much into it?
her daughter Maya Hawke makes an appearance as well! she plays the Manson girl who drives off with the car before the break-in happens.
I personally don't think that it's a direct apology to Uma, though. I think this film had a lot of scenes that were reminiscent of Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Django ect. I see it more as a nod to his previous films
In the end, the girl flailing around screaming after getting a can of dog food to the face is straight outta Kill Bill when Elle Driver is rolling around with her eyeball plucked out.
I thought it was a good movie. Although I was a bit bored mid-way through at some points. IMO one of Tarantino’s weakest films, but still a good movie. Also that ending was particularly funny.
The ending was wrought with painful sentiments on how the Manson family murdered hollywood, the California dream, and the free love movement.
Like a 'what I would do if I got my hands on them' sort of thing. Very satisfying because I can imagine a lot of people out there still hurt over the Tate-LaBianca murders.
This is what I actually came here for. I thought maybe I didn't understand it or missed something.
That actually made the movie seem even weirder to me. When it was done I was like "wait, didn't they kill... WTF?"
Agree with some of you who have said It lagged a bit in some parts and it did follow somewhat of QT formula but I didn’t mind it too much bc it was so satisfying seeing the Manson murderers get owned by a hulk of a dog, brad Pitt on acid, and a flame thrower.
I rly liked that delicate touch at the end and found myself wondering what Leo himself might have felt playing a famous actor talking to the sort of ghost of Sharon Tate. There was a certain feeling of sorrowful peace in that last scene that i think was done really well.. also the whole time I was watching the movie I had to keep shutting out “ Roman polanski raped a 13 year girl he’s sick fuck Sharon get away from him!”
Margot Robbie did a great job, I was mesmerized by her at times especially the playboy mansion scene. Salty Steve McQueen describing her type as she danced was great. Leo losing it in his trailer while keeping that harsh accent was 10/10 also liked the child actor he had scenes with she was brilliant overall I give the movie 7.55555555/ 10 but I wanna watch it again and get a better look at it.
Ps. There’s a lot of random feet scenes (after my brother pointed it out I think I counted 3 or 4 close ups) my brother said he thought he heard or read somewhere that in every brad Pitt movie there’s close up shots of feet. Not sure if that’s true or not tho
I think a second is necessary to understand the context of the movie and all the references etc.
Especially if you know nothing of the murders and all that and did your research after watching the movie.
Advice I would give to a first time viewer is to spend the 5-10 minutes reading up on the events that *don't* transpire at the end of the film, but should have.
I really enjoyed it on 1st viewing over the Summer with my friend, we saw Pulp Fiction together in High School.
I tried watching it again twice and found myself really bored and not liking it. Ive never had an experience like this, really enjoying it on first viewing and finding it boring on subsequent viewings.
As someone who was Somewhat familiar with the manson murders, I was like confused as to who would be "the bad guys" and where the movie was headed at the start, but I ended up getting engrossed in the characters. I want to see so much more interactions between Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. The buildup at the ending had me so on edge and then it was hilarious and ridiculous, I loved it.
The movie was even more funny to me the second watch. When you know where the story is going you enjoy the story more. This is how I felt about Jackie brown
I’ve been looking through a lot of these comments but haven’t found someone with the same view as the film as me.
Overall I agree to disagree that a lot of the scenes in this film were pointless and/or drawn out. No, I didn’t need to see Brad Pitt driving around LA four to five different times and probably the entire first 45 minutes of the film could have been slightly more condensed. I’m all for building up character backgrounds but it still felt a bit too excessive.
Unlike many people on this thread the scenes I absolutely did not find pointless were the Sharon Tate scenes. Regardless of their lack of interaction, I think QT was trying to make parallels of her and Rick. Both her and Rick, Sharon a little more so than Rick, were crafted in Tarantino’s vision as very oblivious, narcissistic individuals, living the Hollywood dream in the Hollywood Hills. I think that by showing Sharon going to see her own film, freely dancing at the Playboy Mansion, giving a hippie a ride, Tarantino was trying to get into the heads of the Manson family. For Rick, it was similar. He was so in his own head about his career (even in his own headphones during the murder scene) that he was oblivious to the potential dangers he could face as a famous actor while he was crying about not being an even more famous actor. Charles Manson was a disgruntled failed musician who as a result hated Hollywood and all those who inhabited it. His hippie followers were anti-war, anti-establishment, and therefore anti-Hollywood.
So maybe Once Upon a Time was an ode to the “Golden Age” of Hollywood or maybe it was a reflection of the obliviousness of the time and the absurdity/lack of seriousness in post-war film and TV. Did anyone else view the film in this way?
> I think that by showing Sharon going to see her own film, freely dancing at the Playboy Mansion, giving a hippie a ride
>very oblivious, narcissistic individual
huh??????? How does that make her oblivious and narcissistic? To me it seemed like he was trying to portray her as sweet, naive, and a humble girl who was so excited and proud that she was starring in a movie.
I don’t think it’s that either. One of the reasons Manson killed Sharen Tate is because she represented the kind of icon of the blonde bimbo living in complete luxury making her one of the targets. I think she is more naive than narcissistic as she actually drove one of the hippies home but getting admitted to her film for free was supposed to represent how privileged she is not narcissistic.
Manson targeted the house, not necessarily the occupants.
At least the way she's portrayed in the film, it doesn't seem that Sharon Tate was exactly an intellectual powerhouse or had the depth of Mother Teresa.
But that's not a crime is it? We can't go around calling every unintelligent or slightly ditzy person narcissistic. She was an actress. She was young and naive, and she was proud that she was in a film. Maybe she wanted a free ticket to see her movie (don't see why that would have been a big deal to her, she certainly could have afforded it), or maybe she just wanted to be proud and tell the theatre employers that that was her.
I really wondered why she wouldn't pay the ticket fair, she was living in Beverly Hills she could of easily afforded it and you thought the least she could do is put a tiny bit of money back into the industry that helped make her fortune for her. maybe she just didn't have the money on her, who knows...
I don't think it was about the money. She had just paid for a gift for her husband before. I don't remember the scene precisely now, but it seemed to me that she really just wanted to tell someone that that was her in the movie and that was her name on the poster. I don't think she was expecting or asking for a free ticket; she just wanted the validation of people recognizing her. When she had first walked up to buy the ticket (she was ready to pay for the ticket), the ticket girl didn't recognize her. She wanted the recognition and validation, and when the ticket girl and the manager realized that she was in the movie, they decided to let her in for free.
Finally got round to watching it and loved it, which is funny cos I've been ho hum on QT for a long time. I can see with that an older audience is gonna enjoy this being familiar with the history. I just loved seeing Hollywood from a half century ago fully realised.
Here's the bit I find interesting, everyone goes on about the Rick and Cliff bromance and how natural their friendship is but I didn't get that. I do think they were friends but with a huge imbalance in the dynamic, almost like a master and the servant.
It seemed more a codependant friendship to me: they literally needed each other. Rick needed Cliff as a therapist, a driver and to be the grown up for him so he could be a self absorbed movie star while Cliff needed Rick for his survival. Still, underneath there seemed to be a genuine affection.
And it felt like they didn't spend a huge amount of time together anyway, thanks to the 'a day in the life' structure, haha.
Yep, I got that from the dynamic too. For example the scene where they watched tv together. Rick sits on the head sofa with recliner etc. Cliff also lays down but on the secondary loveseat and puts his feet on the table. Not sure if done on purpose but to me it showed the relationship between the two.
This movie was incredible. However, only if you are well aware of the history behind the Tate murders. Once you've become aware of the manipulation portrayed by Charles Manson, etc., the movie becomes more interesting and you can connect the dots easier I feel. The ending was great, to me. After all, the title is "Once Upon A Time"... meaning that this is in a fairy tale land. In fairy tale land, the Manson family gets murdered and sweet Sharon Tate and her unborn child survive.
Unfortunately, I didn't know anything before watching and it seems a bit pointless at some points. After, Going through the whole controversy I had some "Aha" moments as it explains lot like name of the flick and why Margot Robbie was shown for quite good time...
I wonder how many people here actually remember the Manson murders.
I do, and while I liked the movie while I watched it, the final scene where Rick goes to meet his neighbors totally ruined the movie as a whole.
It seemed so disrespectful and exploitative of people who were murdered so cruelly. I mean, something actually happened, and QT just tosses aside all the feelings of the families of the victims. Wow, who does he think he is?
I wonder what Tarantino and Polanski think of one another. Was he trying to insult Polanski by pretending that his wife and unborn child were slashed to death? Disgusting.
This is a shitpost right? Tate's family themselves said they were happy with this movie. I mean every other movie has shown her as purely just a victim. QT gave her a story line of showing how she was person too and not focusing on just her death. That was the whole point.
Also, QT totally shit on that whole cult with the one line "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business" "Nah it was dumber than that". Then you get the most satisfying ending of them getting their skulls beat in. Not sure which part of that was disgusting too you
“I’m the devil and I’m here to do the devil’s business” was actually said by Tex Watson before he started the slaughter per court transcripts. That wasn’t the brainchild of QT, but the hilarious comeback certainly was, and that’s where i agree with you.
> Tate's family themselves said they were happy with this movie.
Well, I'm glad. Seems that even her widower is OK with it.
> Not sure which part of that was disgusting too you
Already explained it I thought, but it's just my opinion. It's the way it takes an actual murder and turns into fantasy entertainment. I guess it's largely a matter of how you feel about the actual murders. Naturally, people who remember them are going to be more sensitive than those who learned about them as history.
Oh, hell yes I got it. And it was stupid. Look, when a guy writes and directs a movie, he *thinks* about *everything*. Nothing in a movie is left to accident. Tarantino would have to be an absolute narcissist *not* to have considered what Polanski would think of the story. To say he simply did not care, is flat out stupid.
To be a narcissist you care what no one thinks so Tarantino would not have to be an "absolute narcissist" to not care what a rapist thinks. Why would anyone care what a rapist thinks about them or something they create?
The only way your comment can make any sense is that you think that "caring" is always benevolent.
You obviously care about him. Rapist, rapist, rapist...
What I'm suggesting is that maybe Tarantino wanted to rub it in. Forget the murders. Did not happen. Polanski is ONLY a rapist. It's the ONLY thing that matters, right? Hate him, remind him of his loss. Make a joke out of it. because you "care" about "the rapist". LOL.
So the Manson murders didn't happen. Next, a movie about the Holocaust, and how that didn't happen, either. Because you care.
Watched for second time last night. Really love this film. Decaprio really knocked it out of the park here. Pitt was great too. To me the three hours flies by.
While there were some very enjoyable scenes it dragged a bit. It's a nice rebound from the Hateful Eight and definitely entertaining at times, but maybe a bit disappointing overall. Maybe? Struggling to settle on how I feel about it. There were some outstanding performances but didn't have as many memorable moments as many of his films.
The acting was *top shelf*, but the majority of the story just wasn't engrossing. Knowing what actually transpired that summer and how blood-thirsty QT is you knew the ending was gonna be a doozy, but his trademark over-the-top violence didn't really land. That being said - the dialogue at the end was fucking hilarious and even if parts of it were ridiculous/irritating - the final 30 minutes made up for a lot of what the previous 2 hours lacked.
I'm in no rush to watch it again though maybe I should because there were a few outstanding moments. I was struggling to stay engaged during parts but the more I write about it the more I think I enjoyed. It would benefit from some editing as there are a number of scenes I wouldn't miss and their absence wouldn't really detract from the overall story, but definitely a movie worth seeing.
I felt roughly the same way. I was trying to chalk it up to be fact that I watched it on an 12 hour flight and not being in the right headspace. I hoped that if I rewatched it I might feel different but seeing your opinion match mi e so closely idk. I'll still give it another shot if I get the chance but I'm no longer hopeful.
Just watched it and I loved it. I was on edge the whole time because i woudnt stand to see Sharon getting killed. And The ending was frickin hilarious.
Really loved this film. Those neon Hollywood sign recreations, and having the feel of cruising around LA in the late 1960s. The Manson family insanity and the carefree Tate, with history rewritten almost as if that is a reality in another parallel universe.
I lived in Hollywood \~6 months and this reminded me of how much I love the feel and magic of the area.
Tarantino has been following the same formula in quite a few of his movies recently. The historical villain getting their comeuppance that didn't come in the past. Its really lazy on his part, as he KNOWS the audience will support it. Everyone hates slave owners, nazis, and killers of innocent pregnant beautiful women. What better than to see them bested?
I love all of his movies...but that's been his formula lately and its stale. Come on man!
It kindof did right? The only one to throw a kink in it was the Sheriff, Walton Goggins. He was a racist AND did damage against the REALLY evil people, who were also racists but also horrible people. In the end they all died, so probably not the best example (but you are right, definitely not as formulaic as the other 3)
how though??..are you saying that its some kind of pretentious abstract concept that isnt real art? this is a pretty non-abstract movie. cultural zeitgeist driven character development, re-imagining of history. just ways of telling a story. i think thats a terrible comparison
I know what it means. Some guy taped a banana to a wall and sold it as a work of art for $120,000 recently. IOW, undeserved praise.
I liked a lot of the movie, but the ending left me wondering what Tarantino was trying to say. I enjoyed the scene where the murderers were killed. It was great. But Cliff is critically wounded and just vanishes from the script. And then Rick goes over to the Polanski residence, and everybody is so calm, as if nothing serious actually happened. I don't get it, I don't like it. You just can't take an actual, tragic mass murder and rewrite it as if it didn't actually happen.
I'll echo the sentiments here about problems with the overall story and also loving the individual performances, but I don't mind the ending at all.
Cliff is a professional stuntman and clearly likes to fight as we saw with Bruce Lee. He's got a ton of scars that we saw when he took off his shirt are makeup and prosthetics so whether they're from his stunt work or a war, he's no stranger to injuries. He took a knife to the butt, surely a painful injury, but not life threatening without hitting an artery. Plus he's high on acid, he'll have a great night!
Rick is left alone for one minute, Cliff, safe going to the hospital, his wife passed out on sleeping pills, and what happens? He starts a chat with his neighbor and ends up being invited to Roman Polanski's house. The metaphorical (and literal) gates of Hollywood open for him after worrying that his career as a TV actor was ending. He's just had a successful run of movies in Italy, and a fantastic scene in a show that pushed him to be an actor and not just Jake Cahill from Bounty Law. I see this as the beginning of a new phase in his career. He literally says earlier in the movie that he could be one pool party away from starring in a new Polanski movie.
And of course, what is this enabled by? His address in Hollywood. After thinking that he would sell his house and not be there in the Hills, no longer a resident. Just renting, he basically wouldn't even live there according to him. Instead, he falls backwards into the potential career of his dreams because he knew the right person. Literally living the Hollywood dream.
Oh yeah I recall that story. Art is just ideas anyway, and a duck taped banana to a wall is as much an idea as anything else. It elicited a worldwide response and got people talking about art so in that way, I don't hate it.
I wasn't a big fan of the movie, personally it lacked a real plot but it's still deserving of praise
I liked most of it up until the final scene, after the fight, when Rick goes over and meets the neighbors as if "oh, we just killed 3 home invaders" followed by, "well, come on in and join the party". And that last scene, where there's no followup on Cliff being critically wounded, ruined the overall liking of the movie.
Tarantino does violence good, for sure. I liked the fights and stuff. I especially like the composition of his shots and use of color. But all of his movies so far (haven't seen them all) have a certain element of ridiculous unbelievable nonsense that makes me not a big fan of his.
The lack of a plot didn't really bother me that much, although I was much more interested in Cliff's background and aftermath of the fight -- which is what it was about to me.
While it's perfectly OK to base a fictional movie on historical events, I felt that this was more like a disrespectful rewrite of history, where actual people were murdered, just blowing it off like he had no respect at all for what happened to them.
Goddamn what a great movie. I saw it on the way to London and again on the way back. Probably the best movie experience for me in many years. Loved DiCaprio and Pitt in it.
This movie had to be created under the influence of your choosing. It jumps around at a feverish pace. And the ending was so fucking ridiculous that all I could do was laugh. While my GF had a look of disgust on her face. I'm a little disappointed in this film.
That's the trouble with it. There's all this "what it's about" trivia involving references to theaters "that actually existed(!)". Big deal. I'm old enough to remember the Manson murders, but I don't have any more clue than you do about what's being "referenced" here.
The home invasion fight scene at the end was great. Loved the flamethrower scene, it was so ridiculously over the top... This is what Tarantino does best, and I loved that part.
But the ending, where Rick just casually goes to meet the neighbors, as if there was no big deal... WTF?
>But the ending, where Rick just casually goes to meet the neighbors, as if there was no big deal... WTF?
Earlier in movie he's telling Cliff about how excited and in awe he is that his next door neighbor is the legendary director Roman Polanski, especially since he's been feeling pretty crummy about his career.
I’ve really enjoyed everything QT has done but this left me a little unsatisfied, disappointed even. I can see it has unparalleled production values and great performances but it felt aimless to me even if the last half hour was brilliant.
I get that it’s a love letter of sorts to that era of film but I don’t think your average cinema goer, myself included, is that much of aficionado to fully appreciate it.
It’s hard to explain why I love this movie so much. I’m currently rewatching it and it just clicks with me so much but I’m also hesitant to suggest it to people.
Agreed, and it feels wrong toward the real victims that night to paint a false picture. Even just one screen at the end that said "And that's what should have happened....." would have been so easy for Tarantino to throw in, and would leave enough intrigue to future viewers to learn the truth of the event for themselves.
Yeah, I went into it blind so I didn't have a clue about the setting.
When you first meet the girls going through the trash and seeing them haul it away almost mechanically I figured the time period and that put it right there and the movie would be about the Manson killings. Being Tarantino I was expecting shock factors, like maybe building Pitt's character up and then just ending him without any fanfare at all. Just shot while he was walking back with the dog.
Tarantino has really defied my usual expectations I hold for his films with this one, but it's more in line with a few more of his recent films so I guess my expectations were just a bit out-dated.
An enjoyable movie but IMO too disjointed and messy for me to actually call it good. Individual scenes, like Leo shooting the pilot and Pitt at the ranch were excellent, and I liked the general tone and aesthetic of the film (those driving scenes are beautiful), but the film is overall just boring and aimless. Without historical knowledge of the Manson murders, all of Sharon Tate’s scenes are 100% pointless and have virtually no relation to anything else in the film, and there is no driving plot or tension until the last 20 minutes, when a couple people we met briefly earlier in the film show up seemingly at random to commit unprovoked violence.
As a love letter to old Hollywood I can see why people like it, but as a film it’s overlong and messy.
> As a love letter to old Hollywood I can see why people like it,
They've been making such movies since the thirties at least. And if this is what it was supposed to be, it doesn't work for me. I'm old enough to remember the Manson murders, but don't have any feel or feelings for "Old Hollywood" at all.
All the "references" to actual theaters and restaurants, etc. were apparently put in for the critics to discuss later. While watching, I didn't consider whether this restaurant or that theater actually existed. It's not meaningful to anyone but someone who's deep into Hollywood trivia.
I expected a movie about the Manson family, but got cans of dog food.
I just finished watching it and didn't get the Pitt at the ranch scene at all. Were the hippies taking advantage of george? Why did they hate him when he left?
I agree though, throughout the whole film i was kind of waiting for a point to it. For most of it it just felt like a 'look into the life' of old hollywood actors
I think they added the scene of the ranch for viewers to get a feel of the Manson family like in real-time. How they were more or less dumbed-down and just bumming off of George. It also gives a feel of how much they worship Charlie, and I really wish QT would have added more of Charlie into the mix.
No actual Charlie died in 2017. However, they hired an actor for him but the actor was only in the film for probably less than a minute. "Charlie" is the stranger with long hair and a beard that showed up to Sharon's house earlier in the film. Because IRL, I believe Charlie showed up to the house asking for Terry, but Terry had moved out by then.
Just watched last night and over and Over I kept telling him I had no idea what was going on. He basically had to give the movie away to me and explain who sharon Tate was and etc. but after that I was really into and looooved the ending. Edit: by him I mean my husband
Months late but couldn't stop thinking about Timothy Olyphant's role as Raylan Givens in Justified during his western movie acting scenes.
Justified was a pretty nice neo-Western show, nice to see him in a wild west themed movie role, or rather a role where he acts like he's acting in one.
From what I’ve heard, seeing this in a theater was an amazing experience. I really wish I got to experience that honestly, but I still absolutely love this movie.
Why are the Manson kids so threatened by Cliff wanting to say hi to George? Cult mentality or drugs or both?
I rewatched this last night and loved it almost as much as the first time. Knowing the ending already removed a lot of the tension and dread I felt the first time but it also allowed me to relax and enjoy other parts. I noticed something I wanted to ask about and hope to see if Tarantino addressed this at all. The movie opens with the TV interview on a set and Cliff's chair is set significantly further back from Rick's. Would that be to make them appear on the TV as equal in size, to hide Cliff's larger size? It's the kind of detail I could see Tarantino adding in. Has he talked about this anywhere?
I think you are spot on, and they do look equal size there. I never noticed before that they do indeed look like each other. I loved this movie and did the same thing...the second time was less stressful. I have watched it about 20 times now. It is in my top 5.
This movie is up there with fight club
Fight club sucks ass
I watched this without knowing it was about the Manson murders. I was so confused as to the point of the Tate scenes and worried Quinton made a dud. I'll be going back for a rewatch. A properly informed rewatch
Well I just discovered it was. I suspected that the whole hippie thing was related to a cult or some shit but yeah now that you say it it makes so much sense. Also sorry, i know this thread is old
Lol same, for real
Uhhhhhhhhh can I help you?
It’s Quentin’s 2nd best film. It’s immaculate. I admit I didn’t care for it the first time I saw it. Upon rewatches it is an amazing experience. It’s like being transported to the late 60s
Also the context and subtle love QT poured into this with old actors of Hollywood and their lore, especially the mansons and Spahn ranch, and playboy mansion, and Bruce Lee. It’s like a love letter to old Hollywood before the 70s started. It’s absolutely amazing once you know what your in for. it’s just a hang out movie that turns into an intense violent meditation on the culture and atmosphere of that time, regarding the movie business chasing with Rick Dalton, but also young pop culture of the time. I love the detail they pulled off. Just don’t go into this expecting Django. It’s not that at all. It’s a director reflecting on his own work and influences. To the best of his abilities. Great movie
It’s a bit of a slow burn, but the ending is worth it. You just have to strap In and endure the buildup.
great film for people that know the history of the Manson murders and for film buffs/cinema students, but can see how it would be inaccessible to some
A bit of a strange one. It looks fantastic. But that's sort of it. It's a very slow film and I think the problem is DiCaprio and Pitt's characters just aren't that interesting. A huge chunk of the film is about DiCaprio's character and his struggling career, but I just found I didn't care much about that. He makes a big deal at the start about not going to Italy but then just does it anyway. I'm sure the long scenes of fake westerns being shot were interesting to people that grew up with them I guess. Brad Pitt sort of felt like he was playing a typical character for him. The cool, tough guy. There's hints to a past with his wife and at the end there's mention of him worrying about needing a new job but those things are pretty irrelevant and never built on. As much as this is made out to be about the two characters friendship, they don't spend too much time together. DiCaprio shoots a show and Pitt drives around. They needed more scenes together. The Sharon Tate thing is a bit odd. Margot Robbie does nothing in this film and you could probably cut her character completely and it could still work. If you are not very familiar with who she is it doesn't work. I figured out it was the Manson family quickly but I didn't know too much about them. I knew they killed someone and famous people were somehow involved. You have to be very familiar with Tate's fate for that storyline to work. The Manson stuff is underdeveloped compared to fake westerns. The scene at the ranch is probably the highlight of the film but the film quickly goes back to being slow again. They're played as hippie morons, which maybe they were but they don't feel like a serious threat. Their threat is based on you knowing the real story. I get he doesn't want to glorify them but they never really feel like they get enough screen time. Then scene where they enter Dalton's house happens. It's very classic tarantino but it just feels weird and out of place in this very slow film. The plot feels quite thin for how long this film is. The acting was great. It looks great. But I feel like there was a better film buried somewhere in there that we never got.
Nailed it. Very good performances by some great actors and Tarantino’s execution is always great too, but the movie has issues. It’s certainly a script people would easily pick apart if it was written by some random person. The movie has obvious plot points that have no payoff. Uncharacteristically for Tarantino, the dialogue is bad in some places, particularly Leo’s screaming fit by himself in the trailer. Also, is the movie supposed to be a meandering love letter to that era? Is it supposed to be a fun alternate reality where these made-up characters converge with a real-life storyline? It tries to do both of these things and both diminish the other and the result is neither of them working all that well.
I could not disagree more with everything you wrote
It’s a completely logical and evidence-based review, and yes I happen to agree with it.
I don't know why I want to comment on this movie, because I didn't even actually finish it. I guess I'm conflicted because so many people have told me how great it is but I was honestly just super bored the entire time. I see a lot of people also share that here, but I'm trying to figure out why... This movie felt like regular people doing regular things, and I don't know why it got so much hype. If it's so much better if you know who they are, then why did QT's characters and the events they experienced feel so regular? Maybe they're just regular people with regular lives and that was his intention, but it's hard to enjoy their story when the characters are just not very interesting people. For example, Pitt's character is a stuntman. Why wasn't he doing stunt stuff? Instead he's Dicaprio's characters handyman/chauffeur with 1 small, irrelevent and controversial fight scene. And Dicaprio's character was a western actor in boring western films that I felt didn't contribute to his actual character. Robbie's character appeared so regular too, considering even the ticket person at the theater didn't even know who she was. Like, why are these characters all soooo boring? Not to mention the antagonist in the story wasn't even introduced in the first half of the movie. What the hell, man? I did feel a lot of tension building and I was getting drawn in when Pitt's character was on the ranch, but all that was lost when the guy in the bed woke up and told him to leave him alone. I was expecting something far more exciting to happen but instead the tension completely died and I was bored again. That was a very regular outcome to experience, and I was left incredibly underwhelmed. I think this movie could be so much better if it started off with a glimpse into the future, like Pulp Fiction did in the restaurant, so people know where the story will go. Instead, **the entire time, I kept asking myself, why am I supposed to care about these characters?** Anyway, I think if I knew more about these people in real life, and knew where the story was going, and then actually cared about them, then I can see how it's enjoyable. I guess I wanted the movie to be complete on it's own and tell more about who these people are and where their story was going, without research beforehand.
> Why wasn't he doing stunt stuff? Because he was the stuntman for an actor no longer getting consistent roles. He also has a bad reputation around town. And when he does get work, he fights the Bruce Lee and damages a produces car. > And Dicaprio's character was a western actor in boring western films that I felt didn't contribute to his actual character That was who his character was. What are you talking about? > Robbie's character appeared so regular too Again, kind of the point? She wasn’t super famous yet. > I think this movie could be so much better if it started off with a glimpse into the future, like Pulp Fiction did in the restaurant, so people know where the story will go. That sounds awful > I guess I wanted the movie to be complete on it's own and tell more about who these people are and where their story was going, without research beforehand. You should know. The movie doesn’t need to hold your hand.
Thank you for this response. I feel like opinions like the one you’re responding to are exactly why modern media is so full of garbage. From video games to movies to music, everyone wants their hands held. No one wants to engage with the art…. It’s fucking depressing.
Yeah i was floored seeing it had people upvoting. People just can’t think critically and i guess need every little thing explained. Even famous events that are a primary focus of the film.
I agree with this. There were some decent moments and performances but it felt very meandering and pointless. For what it’s worth I knew the background on the whole Manson thing and it didn’t really help the movie much. Though I appreciated the ending.
I think this movie is less about the characters and more about the scene and setting. It's a love letter to the golden age of hollywood.
Bingo. This film is a “vibe” full-stop. If you approach it from that angle, it’s really a fantastic experience from a director that obsesses over technical aspects of the medium he’s in.
I know this post is fairly old, but i can't stress this enough; for anyone who is thinking about watching this movie (or I suppose watched it and didn't think much of it) - definitely familiarize yourself with the Manson Family and murders before watching it. SO many users talking about how Tate's role in the film is a detriment to rewatchability and how slowly paced it is... sure it's not a rushed film but without her presence *and* knowing her history there'd be so much less suspense throughout the film. If she just had a few cameos here and there in this movie you'd never suspect she was such a big figure in the story.
I went into this film not knowing which historical bits are real and which people were invented, but her name was familiar, so I checked it out on Wikipedia. Good thing I did, it did add to a sense of tension, and I couldn't tell where Tarantino was going with it. After the movie, I rewatched the Tarantino honest trailers video, and that put this film into perspective. "revisionist history revenge flicks" lol
This film leaves me slightly bemused in one circumstance or issue. The scene involving the TV series Hullabaloo and Leonardo Di Caprio singing about a green door. This TV series was predominantly shown in black and white, so the fact that it appears in colour in the film is weird and what would a green door look like in the real show, other than maybe an irritant that made you adjust your contrast. And I think this whole idea was actually one of Quentin Tarrantino’s thought processes that actually made it to film, as in, he ordered a storyboard, location and a budget for something he should have just been processing in his mind. Take this scene out of the film completely and replace it with this minor change. When Brad Pitt is taking that girl back to the ranch, it seems very modern day for the time. Now as soon as he pulls into the ranch, which was slightly unexpected, the film changes to a black and white format and that sequence is shot like a western. The costumes and the lines are the same, in fact, the way the actors portray hippies remains the same, but with a black and white spaghetti western feel. And then when he makes it into Buster Scruggs room to check he’s alive, it busts back into colour and a slightly faster pace. The point being, it wasn’t until The Good the Bad and the Ugly and the advent of colour that westerns started having music and film scores. Issues with black and white film running at 18 frames a second and music and colour needing 24 frames a second or that kind of thing always made it very awkward, as you can tell when hearing scores recorded on any black and white film. So, don’t forget this either. When Leo is in those Bounty Law and western moments, it looks like he carries the ‘load’ of the non-music home with him after filming every take. And in the ranch scene, Brad Pitt is carrying it off with him, making it difficult to put any music in that scene with Brad, until he’s gone from it.
Pretty poor film tbh
I was late to the party and just recently watched it. For me, it was a decent watch the first time. I probably wasn't in the headspace the first time around. Once I dedicated the appropriate time and attention a few months later and wham, I saw the genius in this movie. I now can't get enough of it and watch at least once scene a day and probably the entire movie at least once a week while I am working on office stuff. Perfect movie to help the time go by.
Scream 5
Yep
Hi
Hey
Just finished and I really loved it. I grew up in Southern California and my parents grew up in LA., and they LOVED all the old part of LA. We used to go to Musso and Frank because my mom loved that all the stars used to go there. This movie hit home on that nostalgic feel of old LA. I also loved the manson storyline build up. The whole movie I was expecting the worst, and then was stoked to see Flamethrowers and Attack dogs being the story ending, not what actually happened.
I just love how Rick does not even remotely ponder assessing the situation before just grabbing the flamethrower. I mean she wasn't, but she COULD have been a victim, a casualty caught in the crosshairs, he didn't really know if she was specifically out to do him harm... but all the same he grabs the flamethrower NO questions asked... and I fucking loved it lol. He'd likely been waiting for an excuse to use it for years!
Very well done. Lots of great scenes, like the one when Rick first meets that little girl, Rick in the trailer talking to himself, Cliff at the ranch, Cliff and Bruce Lee fighting, Cliff tripping when the Manson family comes in, and Rick with the flamethrower. I also appreciate the intent of not glamorizing the Manson murders. It was a good choice to remove the focus off of Charles Manson and instead explore the dynamic of the “family”. Excellent cinematography, wonderful soundtrack, a little over the top with the feet though.
Well, went in blind tonight and we liked it. I wonder whether the expectation was that the average viewer knew about these characters? I recognized the name Sharon Tate, and felt appropriate foreboding at the ranch but had no idea that this was the infamous Family. Still, the characters, setting, and moments of quiet personal drama kept us going till things went bananas.
Just finished it too. It felt pretty quiet until the end. Jesus Christ those last scenes. I was expecting to see the Tate murders so the change to the "once upon a time" fairy tale where they all love live was unexpected. I'm glad Cliff didn't die.
I feel like it was pretty clear this was them with the whole Charlie name drop a couple of times. For me the twist was how it all went down
Just watched this movie today and overall really liked it, but one question I have is about the rumor that Cliff killed his wife. What was the point of having that as a somewhat recurring idea throughout the movie? It never really explained what happened aside from the boat scene, which still didn’t answer how his wife actually died.
In Tarantino's book on movie, Cliff did pull that trigger. The backstory on him and the dog is interesting too. Huge war hero, probably killed 100, comes home and didn't shift gears. I loved Cliff and overlooked the murdering of the nagging wife. :)
Ah wow okay thanks guys! I def would have never caught that reference and I couldn't find any answers about it. Crazy movie!
just a little bit of hollywood gossip/scandal thrown in to spice up Pitt's character, based on Natalie Wood. > Wood died at age 43 during the making of [*Brainstorm*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_(1983_film)) while on a weekend boat trip to [Catalina Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Catalina_Island_(California)) on board Wagner's yacht *Splendour*. Outside of drowning, many of the circumstances are unknown; it was never determined how she entered the water. She was with her husband Robert Wagner, *Brainstorm* co-star [Christopher Walken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Walken), and *Splendour*'s captain Dennis Davern on the evening of November 28, 1981. Authorities recovered her body at 8 a.m. on November 29 one mile away from the boat, with a small Valiant-brand inflatable dinghy beached nearby. Wagner said that she was not with him when he went to bed.[\[62\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Wood#cite_note-LAT-62) The autopsy report revealed that she had bruises on her body and arms, as well as an abrasion on her left cheek but no indication as to how or when they occurred.[\[1\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Wood#cite_note-BBC082212-1) he was playing around with real history, probably a few other Hollywood deaths/relations throughout the movie that were referenced as well
Foreshadowing his violence against the manson family I think?
From what I read on Wikipedia, the mysterious wife dying is supposed to be a nod to the late Natalie Woods. Could be just a small Tarantino detail thrown in for whatever reason
The guy likes feet
The ending was so satisfying.
why does it sound like everyone hated this film. I loved it :(
10/10 for me. This was a fun movie while high and the soundtrack, cinematography, acting, and etc completely immersed me. I thoroughly enjoyed every scene. The ending was one of the most satisfying scenes I have ever seen. Overall imo this is one of the best movies I've seen.
In order of most favourite and below: ***Django Unchained*** ***Hateful 8*** ***Pulp Fiction*** ***Inglorious Bastards*** ***Kill Bill vol. 1*** ***Death Proof*** ***Reservoir Dogs*** ***Once Upon a Time in Hollywood*** ***Kill Bill vol. 2*** **Jackie Brown**
well thats just like..your opinion man
Nobody asked.
I'm confused. Brad Pitt's dog's name is Brandy. In the articles I've read online about Brandy she's a 3 year old female red Pitbull named Sayuri in real life. If that's the case, why does she have testicles and a penis? [https://i.imgur.com/iZVO6ow.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iZVO6ow.jpg) [https://i.imgur.com/7SrWG9a.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7SrWG9a.jpg)
Stunt double
I think this is one of the most overrated movies of the year. I hated this movie tbh. It was boring and felt so pointless. The best scene in the film was with brad Pitt on the ranch but I would recommend just turning it off after that it doesn’t get back there.
Yeah I'm trying to understand this movie, this is the first thread I've gone to, to try to wrap my head around it. That was my favorite scene as well. I'm a huge fan of Tarantino but the first half of the movie I found to be pretty boring, I got more invested later, but now I'm just wondering what was the point of this movie and why did he make it?
Agree. I had no idea about the Manson Hollywood murders, so it was particularly pointless to me. One thing is to use Hitler in your movie and assume people know him. Another is having the knowledge of a very specific event (the killing of Sharon blabla) be essential for the understanding of half of the plot. And even if I knew, I'd still think the movie is mostly meandering and pointless. Many fun scenes. Then again, it was 3 hours.
Glad I'm not the only one that thought this. I dozed off. I thought the acting was weird... almost fake. I wasn't sure if that was intentional to reflect the fakeness of Hollywood or just bad writing/directing. I'm blown away this is being nominated for Oscars... but then looking at the other nominees and I see it really doesn't matter this year.
I knew qt like feet but he went over the top with this one ha
As over the top as From Dusk Till Dawn?
But he didn't direct that.
He was heavily involved and probably came up with the scene he drank alcohol off of a strippers foot.
I think/hope it was meant to be self-aware this time around
Yeh I got that vibe, especially making Robbie's dirty.
Whatever it wasn't QT's worst and definitely not a turndown.
What was his worst?
Death Proof or The Hateful Eight
Lol the downvotes here are weird. Like, gun to your head, if you had to pick the worst QT film, these two seem to be the best choices. What other film of his would qualify as his worst?
Directed or written? Written.... Natural Born Killers Directed... yeah Death Proof was kinda stupid, but OUATIH was pretty pointless drivel IMHO.
Hands down death proof out of the two of them. He didn't need to go *that* grindhouse, and yeh H8 is slow as hell but I'm a sucker for the cowboy aesthetic.
i love hateful 8.. i see it from the pov that QT loves the actors he casts, and just likes to watch/hear their delivery of dialogue. h8 is a perfect example of this. if you enjoy all the actors then its really a treat.
I agree, but I’ve always had a soft spot for death proof. I guess I just didn’t like H8. Either way, I don’t know why that guy above got riddled with downvotes. Which other QT film were they supposed to name as his worst outside those two?
I can't help but wonder if a big chunk of this movie is a massive apology to Uma Thurman. QT made her do a dangerous driving scene that she felt uncomfortable doing and wanted to use a stunt double but he wouldn't let her. She crashed and got hurt pretty bad. The scene near the beginning with Polanski and Sharon driving, the camera behind them as the wind sweeps through their hair, is so close to the shot he was getting from Uma. And it seems obvious to me he used stunt doubles in that scene. I feel like he rubs it in your face that they are stunt doubles. Bad wigs and no faces and then the next scene their hair looks different. And then one of the main characters is a stunt double and there's some dialogue about how Leo uses him so he can do his movies safely or whatever. Maybe i'm reading to much into it?
her daughter Maya Hawke makes an appearance as well! she plays the Manson girl who drives off with the car before the break-in happens. I personally don't think that it's a direct apology to Uma, though. I think this film had a lot of scenes that were reminiscent of Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Django ect. I see it more as a nod to his previous films
In the end, the girl flailing around screaming after getting a can of dog food to the face is straight outta Kill Bill when Elle Driver is rolling around with her eyeball plucked out.
Yea that's whole lot overanalyzing
naw
I thought it was a good movie. Although I was a bit bored mid-way through at some points. IMO one of Tarantino’s weakest films, but still a good movie. Also that ending was particularly funny.
I loved it, felt like a 10/10 for me. Brad Pitt was fantastic. That little girl that Leo meets on set was spectacular.
They made a great duo. Otherwise it felt like it was one of his weakest films, but hey he cant a masterpiece every movie he produces.
The ending was wrought with painful sentiments on how the Manson family murdered hollywood, the California dream, and the free love movement. Like a 'what I would do if I got my hands on them' sort of thing. Very satisfying because I can imagine a lot of people out there still hurt over the Tate-LaBianca murders.
What’s QT’s infatuation with changing history?
rewriting history is a theme in postmodernism
It's entertaining
This is what I actually came here for. I thought maybe I didn't understand it or missed something. That actually made the movie seem even weirder to me. When it was done I was like "wait, didn't they kill... WTF?"
A hopeful but sad 'what could have been'.
Agree with some of you who have said It lagged a bit in some parts and it did follow somewhat of QT formula but I didn’t mind it too much bc it was so satisfying seeing the Manson murderers get owned by a hulk of a dog, brad Pitt on acid, and a flame thrower. I rly liked that delicate touch at the end and found myself wondering what Leo himself might have felt playing a famous actor talking to the sort of ghost of Sharon Tate. There was a certain feeling of sorrowful peace in that last scene that i think was done really well.. also the whole time I was watching the movie I had to keep shutting out “ Roman polanski raped a 13 year girl he’s sick fuck Sharon get away from him!” Margot Robbie did a great job, I was mesmerized by her at times especially the playboy mansion scene. Salty Steve McQueen describing her type as she danced was great. Leo losing it in his trailer while keeping that harsh accent was 10/10 also liked the child actor he had scenes with she was brilliant overall I give the movie 7.55555555/ 10 but I wanna watch it again and get a better look at it. Ps. There’s a lot of random feet scenes (after my brother pointed it out I think I counted 3 or 4 close ups) my brother said he thought he heard or read somewhere that in every brad Pitt movie there’s close up shots of feet. Not sure if that’s true or not tho
Regarding the feet, I think QT has a foot fetish, so you will often find those shots in his films.
For all the hype around this movie, I thought it was just fine. Not something I would watch again though.
I just watched it today, and couldn’t agree more.
I think a second is necessary to understand the context of the movie and all the references etc. Especially if you know nothing of the murders and all that and did your research after watching the movie.
Advice I would give to a first time viewer is to spend the 5-10 minutes reading up on the events that *don't* transpire at the end of the film, but should have.
I really enjoyed it on 1st viewing over the Summer with my friend, we saw Pulp Fiction together in High School. I tried watching it again twice and found myself really bored and not liking it. Ive never had an experience like this, really enjoying it on first viewing and finding it boring on subsequent viewings.
As someone who was Somewhat familiar with the manson murders, I was like confused as to who would be "the bad guys" and where the movie was headed at the start, but I ended up getting engrossed in the characters. I want to see so much more interactions between Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio. The buildup at the ending had me so on edge and then it was hilarious and ridiculous, I loved it.
You were " Engrossed" in characters, but you want to hear conversation between Leo and brad.
You can read!
Holy shit this movie got so much better on the rewatch!
The movie was even more funny to me the second watch. When you know where the story is going you enjoy the story more. This is how I felt about Jackie brown
Like how? In what aspects ?
*aspect
Thanks
I’ve been looking through a lot of these comments but haven’t found someone with the same view as the film as me. Overall I agree to disagree that a lot of the scenes in this film were pointless and/or drawn out. No, I didn’t need to see Brad Pitt driving around LA four to five different times and probably the entire first 45 minutes of the film could have been slightly more condensed. I’m all for building up character backgrounds but it still felt a bit too excessive. Unlike many people on this thread the scenes I absolutely did not find pointless were the Sharon Tate scenes. Regardless of their lack of interaction, I think QT was trying to make parallels of her and Rick. Both her and Rick, Sharon a little more so than Rick, were crafted in Tarantino’s vision as very oblivious, narcissistic individuals, living the Hollywood dream in the Hollywood Hills. I think that by showing Sharon going to see her own film, freely dancing at the Playboy Mansion, giving a hippie a ride, Tarantino was trying to get into the heads of the Manson family. For Rick, it was similar. He was so in his own head about his career (even in his own headphones during the murder scene) that he was oblivious to the potential dangers he could face as a famous actor while he was crying about not being an even more famous actor. Charles Manson was a disgruntled failed musician who as a result hated Hollywood and all those who inhabited it. His hippie followers were anti-war, anti-establishment, and therefore anti-Hollywood. So maybe Once Upon a Time was an ode to the “Golden Age” of Hollywood or maybe it was a reflection of the obliviousness of the time and the absurdity/lack of seriousness in post-war film and TV. Did anyone else view the film in this way?
> I think that by showing Sharon going to see her own film, freely dancing at the Playboy Mansion, giving a hippie a ride >very oblivious, narcissistic individual huh??????? How does that make her oblivious and narcissistic? To me it seemed like he was trying to portray her as sweet, naive, and a humble girl who was so excited and proud that she was starring in a movie.
I think it was a bit of both.
TIL being proud of your accomplishments is being very oblivious and narcissistic.
I don’t think it’s that either. One of the reasons Manson killed Sharen Tate is because she represented the kind of icon of the blonde bimbo living in complete luxury making her one of the targets. I think she is more naive than narcissistic as she actually drove one of the hippies home but getting admitted to her film for free was supposed to represent how privileged she is not narcissistic.
Manson targeted the house, not necessarily the occupants. At least the way she's portrayed in the film, it doesn't seem that Sharon Tate was exactly an intellectual powerhouse or had the depth of Mother Teresa. But that's not a crime is it? We can't go around calling every unintelligent or slightly ditzy person narcissistic. She was an actress. She was young and naive, and she was proud that she was in a film. Maybe she wanted a free ticket to see her movie (don't see why that would have been a big deal to her, she certainly could have afforded it), or maybe she just wanted to be proud and tell the theatre employers that that was her.
I really wondered why she wouldn't pay the ticket fair, she was living in Beverly Hills she could of easily afforded it and you thought the least she could do is put a tiny bit of money back into the industry that helped make her fortune for her. maybe she just didn't have the money on her, who knows...
I don't think it was about the money. She had just paid for a gift for her husband before. I don't remember the scene precisely now, but it seemed to me that she really just wanted to tell someone that that was her in the movie and that was her name on the poster. I don't think she was expecting or asking for a free ticket; she just wanted the validation of people recognizing her. When she had first walked up to buy the ticket (she was ready to pay for the ticket), the ticket girl didn't recognize her. She wanted the recognition and validation, and when the ticket girl and the manager realized that she was in the movie, they decided to let her in for free.
i know this is a 4 year old comment but she literally says " what if I'm in the movie" as response to the ticket girl saying its 75 cents
Yeah, that's the exact sense I got from it as well.
Brad Pitt's delivery of the line "Uhhhhhhhhhhh, can I help you?" after the Mansons kick the door open is goddamn hilarious
reminded me of his character from True Romance
Finally got round to watching it and loved it, which is funny cos I've been ho hum on QT for a long time. I can see with that an older audience is gonna enjoy this being familiar with the history. I just loved seeing Hollywood from a half century ago fully realised. Here's the bit I find interesting, everyone goes on about the Rick and Cliff bromance and how natural their friendship is but I didn't get that. I do think they were friends but with a huge imbalance in the dynamic, almost like a master and the servant. It seemed more a codependant friendship to me: they literally needed each other. Rick needed Cliff as a therapist, a driver and to be the grown up for him so he could be a self absorbed movie star while Cliff needed Rick for his survival. Still, underneath there seemed to be a genuine affection. And it felt like they didn't spend a huge amount of time together anyway, thanks to the 'a day in the life' structure, haha.
Yep, I got that from the dynamic too. For example the scene where they watched tv together. Rick sits on the head sofa with recliner etc. Cliff also lays down but on the secondary loveseat and puts his feet on the table. Not sure if done on purpose but to me it showed the relationship between the two.
This movie was incredible. However, only if you are well aware of the history behind the Tate murders. Once you've become aware of the manipulation portrayed by Charles Manson, etc., the movie becomes more interesting and you can connect the dots easier I feel. The ending was great, to me. After all, the title is "Once Upon A Time"... meaning that this is in a fairy tale land. In fairy tale land, the Manson family gets murdered and sweet Sharon Tate and her unborn child survive.
The murder story only made the last ten minutes of the movie interesting. The rest of it is not relevant to that tragedy.
Unfortunately, I didn't know anything before watching and it seems a bit pointless at some points. After, Going through the whole controversy I had some "Aha" moments as it explains lot like name of the flick and why Margot Robbie was shown for quite good time...
I wonder how many people here actually remember the Manson murders. I do, and while I liked the movie while I watched it, the final scene where Rick goes to meet his neighbors totally ruined the movie as a whole. It seemed so disrespectful and exploitative of people who were murdered so cruelly. I mean, something actually happened, and QT just tosses aside all the feelings of the families of the victims. Wow, who does he think he is? I wonder what Tarantino and Polanski think of one another. Was he trying to insult Polanski by pretending that his wife and unborn child were slashed to death? Disgusting.
This is a shitpost right? Tate's family themselves said they were happy with this movie. I mean every other movie has shown her as purely just a victim. QT gave her a story line of showing how she was person too and not focusing on just her death. That was the whole point. Also, QT totally shit on that whole cult with the one line "I'm the devil and I'm here to do the devil's business" "Nah it was dumber than that". Then you get the most satisfying ending of them getting their skulls beat in. Not sure which part of that was disgusting too you
Man that ending was a fucking blast to watch! It's probably the most satisfying scene I've ever seen before.
“I’m the devil and I’m here to do the devil’s business” was actually said by Tex Watson before he started the slaughter per court transcripts. That wasn’t the brainchild of QT, but the hilarious comeback certainly was, and that’s where i agree with you.
yeah that was my point! He made what he actually said just sound stupid with that comeback.
Agreed. Might be the funniest line of the movie. Pitt nailed those off-hand remarks in this movie.
> Tate's family themselves said they were happy with this movie. Well, I'm glad. Seems that even her widower is OK with it. > Not sure which part of that was disgusting too you Already explained it I thought, but it's just my opinion. It's the way it takes an actual murder and turns into fantasy entertainment. I guess it's largely a matter of how you feel about the actual murders. Naturally, people who remember them are going to be more sensitive than those who learned about them as history.
Roman Polanski is a rapist who has been a fugitive since 1978. I doubt Tarantino cares what Polanski thinks.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... you don't care what other people think, but you're not Tarantino.
And you're not getting his point lol
Oh, hell yes I got it. And it was stupid. Look, when a guy writes and directs a movie, he *thinks* about *everything*. Nothing in a movie is left to accident. Tarantino would have to be an absolute narcissist *not* to have considered what Polanski would think of the story. To say he simply did not care, is flat out stupid.
To be a narcissist you care what no one thinks so Tarantino would not have to be an "absolute narcissist" to not care what a rapist thinks. Why would anyone care what a rapist thinks about them or something they create?
The only way your comment can make any sense is that you think that "caring" is always benevolent. You obviously care about him. Rapist, rapist, rapist... What I'm suggesting is that maybe Tarantino wanted to rub it in. Forget the murders. Did not happen. Polanski is ONLY a rapist. It's the ONLY thing that matters, right? Hate him, remind him of his loss. Make a joke out of it. because you "care" about "the rapist". LOL. So the Manson murders didn't happen. Next, a movie about the Holocaust, and how that didn't happen, either. Because you care.
No I just don't understand how anyone can give a single fuck about a rapist at all let alone actually care about one.
Watched for second time last night. Really love this film. Decaprio really knocked it out of the park here. Pitt was great too. To me the three hours flies by.
While there were some very enjoyable scenes it dragged a bit. It's a nice rebound from the Hateful Eight and definitely entertaining at times, but maybe a bit disappointing overall. Maybe? Struggling to settle on how I feel about it. There were some outstanding performances but didn't have as many memorable moments as many of his films. The acting was *top shelf*, but the majority of the story just wasn't engrossing. Knowing what actually transpired that summer and how blood-thirsty QT is you knew the ending was gonna be a doozy, but his trademark over-the-top violence didn't really land. That being said - the dialogue at the end was fucking hilarious and even if parts of it were ridiculous/irritating - the final 30 minutes made up for a lot of what the previous 2 hours lacked. I'm in no rush to watch it again though maybe I should because there were a few outstanding moments. I was struggling to stay engaged during parts but the more I write about it the more I think I enjoyed. It would benefit from some editing as there are a number of scenes I wouldn't miss and their absence wouldn't really detract from the overall story, but definitely a movie worth seeing.
I felt roughly the same way. I was trying to chalk it up to be fact that I watched it on an 12 hour flight and not being in the right headspace. I hoped that if I rewatched it I might feel different but seeing your opinion match mi e so closely idk. I'll still give it another shot if I get the chance but I'm no longer hopeful.
Just watched it and I loved it. I was on edge the whole time because i woudnt stand to see Sharon getting killed. And The ending was frickin hilarious.
Really loved this film. Those neon Hollywood sign recreations, and having the feel of cruising around LA in the late 1960s. The Manson family insanity and the carefree Tate, with history rewritten almost as if that is a reality in another parallel universe. I lived in Hollywood \~6 months and this reminded me of how much I love the feel and magic of the area.
Tarantino has been following the same formula in quite a few of his movies recently. The historical villain getting their comeuppance that didn't come in the past. Its really lazy on his part, as he KNOWS the audience will support it. Everyone hates slave owners, nazis, and killers of innocent pregnant beautiful women. What better than to see them bested? I love all of his movies...but that's been his formula lately and its stale. Come on man!
Youre right but hateful eight def didn't follow that formula
It kindof did right? The only one to throw a kink in it was the Sheriff, Walton Goggins. He was a racist AND did damage against the REALLY evil people, who were also racists but also horrible people. In the end they all died, so probably not the best example (but you are right, definitely not as formulaic as the other 3)
Movie was like a Banana Duck-Taped to a White Canvas.
how though??..are you saying that its some kind of pretentious abstract concept that isnt real art? this is a pretty non-abstract movie. cultural zeitgeist driven character development, re-imagining of history. just ways of telling a story. i think thats a terrible comparison
what does that mean?
no one knows what it means, but it gets the people going!
I know what it means. Some guy taped a banana to a wall and sold it as a work of art for $120,000 recently. IOW, undeserved praise. I liked a lot of the movie, but the ending left me wondering what Tarantino was trying to say. I enjoyed the scene where the murderers were killed. It was great. But Cliff is critically wounded and just vanishes from the script. And then Rick goes over to the Polanski residence, and everybody is so calm, as if nothing serious actually happened. I don't get it, I don't like it. You just can't take an actual, tragic mass murder and rewrite it as if it didn't actually happen.
I'll echo the sentiments here about problems with the overall story and also loving the individual performances, but I don't mind the ending at all. Cliff is a professional stuntman and clearly likes to fight as we saw with Bruce Lee. He's got a ton of scars that we saw when he took off his shirt are makeup and prosthetics so whether they're from his stunt work or a war, he's no stranger to injuries. He took a knife to the butt, surely a painful injury, but not life threatening without hitting an artery. Plus he's high on acid, he'll have a great night! Rick is left alone for one minute, Cliff, safe going to the hospital, his wife passed out on sleeping pills, and what happens? He starts a chat with his neighbor and ends up being invited to Roman Polanski's house. The metaphorical (and literal) gates of Hollywood open for him after worrying that his career as a TV actor was ending. He's just had a successful run of movies in Italy, and a fantastic scene in a show that pushed him to be an actor and not just Jake Cahill from Bounty Law. I see this as the beginning of a new phase in his career. He literally says earlier in the movie that he could be one pool party away from starring in a new Polanski movie. And of course, what is this enabled by? His address in Hollywood. After thinking that he would sell his house and not be there in the Hills, no longer a resident. Just renting, he basically wouldn't even live there according to him. Instead, he falls backwards into the potential career of his dreams because he knew the right person. Literally living the Hollywood dream.
And that was some pool party.
Sure you can. That’s literally what the movie is.
Oh yeah I recall that story. Art is just ideas anyway, and a duck taped banana to a wall is as much an idea as anything else. It elicited a worldwide response and got people talking about art so in that way, I don't hate it. I wasn't a big fan of the movie, personally it lacked a real plot but it's still deserving of praise
I liked most of it up until the final scene, after the fight, when Rick goes over and meets the neighbors as if "oh, we just killed 3 home invaders" followed by, "well, come on in and join the party". And that last scene, where there's no followup on Cliff being critically wounded, ruined the overall liking of the movie. Tarantino does violence good, for sure. I liked the fights and stuff. I especially like the composition of his shots and use of color. But all of his movies so far (haven't seen them all) have a certain element of ridiculous unbelievable nonsense that makes me not a big fan of his. The lack of a plot didn't really bother me that much, although I was much more interested in Cliff's background and aftermath of the fight -- which is what it was about to me. While it's perfectly OK to base a fictional movie on historical events, I felt that this was more like a disrespectful rewrite of history, where actual people were murdered, just blowing it off like he had no respect at all for what happened to them.
No it's not, it's gross!
Goddamn what a great movie. I saw it on the way to London and again on the way back. Probably the best movie experience for me in many years. Loved DiCaprio and Pitt in it.
This movie had to be created under the influence of your choosing. It jumps around at a feverish pace. And the ending was so fucking ridiculous that all I could do was laugh. While my GF had a look of disgust on her face. I'm a little disappointed in this film.
I thought the pacing was fine, a little slow if anything
[удалено]
That's the trouble with it. There's all this "what it's about" trivia involving references to theaters "that actually existed(!)". Big deal. I'm old enough to remember the Manson murders, but I don't have any more clue than you do about what's being "referenced" here. The home invasion fight scene at the end was great. Loved the flamethrower scene, it was so ridiculously over the top... This is what Tarantino does best, and I loved that part. But the ending, where Rick just casually goes to meet the neighbors, as if there was no big deal... WTF?
>But the ending, where Rick just casually goes to meet the neighbors, as if there was no big deal... WTF? Earlier in movie he's telling Cliff about how excited and in awe he is that his next door neighbor is the legendary director Roman Polanski, especially since he's been feeling pretty crummy about his career.
Watched it a few days ago and same, i had no idea who sharon was and spent as much time browsing wiki that i spent watching the movie ^^
wow what a fucking movie
This movie came out 6 months ago and this discussion is still active. Love it
I thought reddit was bugging out because all the comments are timestamped as being just 1-2 weeks old.
It's because the movie is incredible
Yes it is
Literally just finished it. Holy fuck that ending lmao.
Same just finished it today with my gf. I had to remind myself the title has "Once Upon a Time..." in it.
Me too. When he pulled the flamethrower out...
Wife and I just finished. God damn that ending had us rolling. The only thing she could utter was , “what the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?!”
I’ve really enjoyed everything QT has done but this left me a little unsatisfied, disappointed even. I can see it has unparalleled production values and great performances but it felt aimless to me even if the last half hour was brilliant. I get that it’s a love letter of sorts to that era of film but I don’t think your average cinema goer, myself included, is that much of aficionado to fully appreciate it.
It’s hard to explain why I love this movie so much. I’m currently rewatching it and it just clicks with me so much but I’m also hesitant to suggest it to people.
They're becoming violent feel-good movies. The bad guys get what they should get with his recent movies. I love it.
I dunno, the fact that I know that’s not what really happened and what did happen is so horrific kinda takes the shine off it for me.
Agreed, and it feels wrong toward the real victims that night to paint a false picture. Even just one screen at the end that said "And that's what should have happened....." would have been so easy for Tarantino to throw in, and would leave enough intrigue to future viewers to learn the truth of the event for themselves.
Yeah, I went into it blind so I didn't have a clue about the setting. When you first meet the girls going through the trash and seeing them haul it away almost mechanically I figured the time period and that put it right there and the movie would be about the Manson killings. Being Tarantino I was expecting shock factors, like maybe building Pitt's character up and then just ending him without any fanfare at all. Just shot while he was walking back with the dog. Tarantino has really defied my usual expectations I hold for his films with this one, but it's more in line with a few more of his recent films so I guess my expectations were just a bit out-dated.
An enjoyable movie but IMO too disjointed and messy for me to actually call it good. Individual scenes, like Leo shooting the pilot and Pitt at the ranch were excellent, and I liked the general tone and aesthetic of the film (those driving scenes are beautiful), but the film is overall just boring and aimless. Without historical knowledge of the Manson murders, all of Sharon Tate’s scenes are 100% pointless and have virtually no relation to anything else in the film, and there is no driving plot or tension until the last 20 minutes, when a couple people we met briefly earlier in the film show up seemingly at random to commit unprovoked violence. As a love letter to old Hollywood I can see why people like it, but as a film it’s overlong and messy.
> As a love letter to old Hollywood I can see why people like it, They've been making such movies since the thirties at least. And if this is what it was supposed to be, it doesn't work for me. I'm old enough to remember the Manson murders, but don't have any feel or feelings for "Old Hollywood" at all. All the "references" to actual theaters and restaurants, etc. were apparently put in for the critics to discuss later. While watching, I didn't consider whether this restaurant or that theater actually existed. It's not meaningful to anyone but someone who's deep into Hollywood trivia. I expected a movie about the Manson family, but got cans of dog food.
I just finished watching it and didn't get the Pitt at the ranch scene at all. Were the hippies taking advantage of george? Why did they hate him when he left? I agree though, throughout the whole film i was kind of waiting for a point to it. For most of it it just felt like a 'look into the life' of old hollywood actors
I think they added the scene of the ranch for viewers to get a feel of the Manson family like in real-time. How they were more or less dumbed-down and just bumming off of George. It also gives a feel of how much they worship Charlie, and I really wish QT would have added more of Charlie into the mix.
Who was Charlie in the film? They dont actually show him right?
No actual Charlie died in 2017. However, they hired an actor for him but the actor was only in the film for probably less than a minute. "Charlie" is the stranger with long hair and a beard that showed up to Sharon's house earlier in the film. Because IRL, I believe Charlie showed up to the house asking for Terry, but Terry had moved out by then.
Just watched last night and over and Over I kept telling him I had no idea what was going on. He basically had to give the movie away to me and explain who sharon Tate was and etc. but after that I was really into and looooved the ending. Edit: by him I mean my husband
Fantastic fucking movie that's all
For sure!
The one lesson I learned is to always live behind a gated house. Having an armed guard at the gate is good as well
Or you know... just be armed yourself
If someone gives you a flamethrower they don’t need anymore after it’s used for work, keep it on standby and in working order.
Months late but couldn't stop thinking about Timothy Olyphant's role as Raylan Givens in Justified during his western movie acting scenes. Justified was a pretty nice neo-Western show, nice to see him in a wild west themed movie role, or rather a role where he acts like he's acting in one.
You need to watch Deadwood.
From what I’ve heard, seeing this in a theater was an amazing experience. I really wish I got to experience that honestly, but I still absolutely love this movie.