Once Upon a Time in Hollywood |OT| Fictional Glorious Basterds Unchained (Open Spoilers)

Jun 4, 2019
3,451
The trailer didn't do much for me, but the movie itself I definitely enjoyed. Yes several parts were very slow but I overall enjoyed it quite a bit. I really like Pitt's character here and of course Dicaprio is superb as well. As for Pitt's character... one thing remains unclesr for me.

that stuff about him having killed his wife and getting away with it. We never truly learn what is true about this, do we? I liked the character a lot, but it would suck if I'm rooting for a dude that offed his own wife.
 

Peek-a-boo!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,900
Woodbridge
Finally saw it, really liked it. Have to sit on it for a few days to fully appreciate it, but here are a few things:

1) The setting and portrayal of 60s hollywood feels incredibly authentic
2) Love all the research that went into the movie, so many little nods and references
3) The criticism of a lack of "narrative" in the first half or so is understandable, but I think the final hour melds it all together really well. I think if you go into it knowing that it isn't a plot driven film, you'll enjoy it far more.
4) The ending was incredibly cathartic
5) DiCaprio kills it as always
6) The Tate scenes at first were confusing, but in combination with the ending I think make a lot of sense

Tarantino does it again.
Saw this a second time today, a month after seeing it for the first time, and at a nice little independent theatre with an appreciative crowd.

As somebody who loves the movies, music, and telly in the 60’s era, Tarantino not only got it absolutely spot on, but the love and care he pours into replicating the 60’s era made the film all the more authentic — not one thing was out of place. The soundtrack, too, is sublime.

You are right in pointing out about the first half feeling slightly disjointed however, things gradually comes together after we see Cliff turn up at the ranch, which ended up being a pivotal part of the story.

It is now my favourite Tarantino film, and seeing this a second time today only reinforces my view.
 

Truant

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,890
The ending made the film so much better. I was thinking "where the fuck is this going?" the entire time, but the finale made everything make sense. Loved the bromance between Leo and Brad, and the final five minutes were very touching. The film is like a mini universe where Sharon Tate is still alive. I also loved the final interactions between Leo and the Tate crew. Touching and very respectful.
 

Poimandres

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,034
Just saw this. It was decent, but not really into the whole "alternate history" thing Tarantino has done a couple of times. Honestly, I thought they could have cut anything Sharon Tate related and just focused on Leo and Brad and nothing of great consequence would have been lost.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,241
I've watched this drunk with my wife and my buddy… I fucking lost it at the final beatdown. Like holy shit I was expecting violence, but this was something else. Had a bloody good time at how the movie basically takes a huge Dump all over this mystified era of Hollywood. That can of dog Food is on the same Level as Rambos 50cal rampage on the truck.

Not my favourite Tarantino movie, but probably the funniest end fight I've seen in years.

The trailer didn't do much for me, but the movie itself I definitely enjoyed. Yes several parts were very slow but I overall enjoyed it quite a bit. I really like Pitt's character here and of course Dicaprio is superb as well. As for Pitt's character... one thing remains unclesr for me.

that stuff about him having killed his wife and getting away with it. We never truly learn what is true about this, do we? I liked the character a lot, but it would suck if I'm rooting for a dude that offed his own wife.
The Thing is, this is Hollywood. Everything is exaggerated, everything is overblown and mystified. Tarantino doesn't want us to know if he did it or not. The myth is more important than the truth.
 

Deleted member 19218

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,323
Just saw it and I loved it. I loved how people are not what you expected, the main character is having some nervous breakdown, his stuntman lives a washed up lifestyle and famous people like Bruce Lee turn out to be nasty in real life.

My take away is that Hollywood is not as glamorous as it seems.
 

Fallout-NL

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,536
I mean, if the movie is making the case that rich people should just be asshole to people who drive shitty cars in their streets because they might end up being serial killers than I have bigger disagreement with the film.
Though again, I don't think that's what the film was going with.

I think the movie was going for: this is a gated private drive and some sketchy people in a noisy car that's belching smoke in the middle of the night outside Leo's house pissed him off.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Don't forget that at that point, Dalton is actually unsure about his future. He's already decided to sell his house and by extension his gated community privileges and the anger partly - probably - comes from being confronted with a possible future, i.e. driving a run down heap of shit, no longer being welcome among the happy few.
 

CatWizard85

Member
Mar 18, 2019
26
Italy
For sure my least favourite of Tarantino's films. It's amazing from a technical point of view, the details are incredible, but what am i really watching? A huge nostalgic almost plotless diorama with all the author's fetishes shoved in..? A sort of old-times alpha american man beating hippie girls to death? A childish attempt to romanticize the past beyond reality and to rewrite history in the post-truth era? Is this Tarantino's personal "make America great again" delusion?
 
Oct 28, 2017
8,621
For sure my least favourite of Tarantino's films. It's amazing from a technical point of view, the details are incredible, but what am i really watching? A huge nostalgic almost plotless diorama with all the author's fetishes shoved in..? A sort of old-times alpha american man beating hippie girls to death? A childish attempt to romanticize the past beyond reality and to rewrite history in the post-truth era? Is this Tarantino's personal "make America great again" delusion?
By hippie-girls are you referring to the women who brutally and mercilessly slaughtered a pregnant woman for shits and giggles?

Because I'm okay with them getting fucked up on screen the same way I'm cool with Nazis being blown to giblets in Wolfenstein.
 

KyrieEleison

Avenger
Dec 31, 2017
918
For sure my least favourite of Tarantino's films. It's amazing from a technical point of view, the details are incredible, but what am i really watching? A huge nostalgic almost plotless diorama with all the author's fetishes shoved in..? A sort of old-times alpha american man beating hippie girls to death? A childish attempt to romanticize the past beyond reality and to rewrite history in the post-truth era? Is this Tarantino's personal "make America great again" delusion?
Hot take.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,290
I disagree with CatWizard85 on the experience, but I don't see the point of jumping on him for it. The context makes those anything but just "hippie girls" but what you see on screen in exactly that. A lot of critics called this QT's most conservative movie.

Personally I loved the movie, but he's not seeing something that isn't there.
 

Gustaf

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
7,644
I disagree with CatWizard85 on the experience, but I don't see the point of jumping on him for it. The context makes those anything but just "hippie girls" but what you see on screen in exactly that. A lot of critics called this QT's most conservative movie.

Personally I loved the movie, but he's not seeing something that isn't there.
what you mean? that the film presents them as just "hippie girls"?
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,290
Not "just hippie girls" but there's scorn dumped on them by the main characters before they know that they are scum.
 

CatWizard85

Member
Mar 18, 2019
26
Italy
By hippie-girls are you referring to the women who brutally and mercilessly slaughtered a pregnant woman for shits and giggles?
Yes. Because the film does very little (or nothing) to tell the Manson gang from average hippies. What if the viewer doesn't know well about Sharon Tate's murder and all the historical case of Charles Manson's family, or about american society issues in the 60s? What this unaware viewer is watching is a couple of american cowboys slaughtering evil drug addicted hippies. After seeing Rick Dalton throwing rants against hippies.
If i don't know the real facts (about which this film tells me nothing), all i see are hippie girls. Going crazy, because of drugs and lack of american values, i guess..
Maybe every person in USA knows about the whole story, because it's their recent history, but that's not the same in the rest of the world. Here in Italy, for example, i think only people who are very passionate about cinema know the story well enough to get everything this film is about. Many don't even know who Charles Manson was. It's like making a film about the murder of Aldo Moro in 70s Italy and totally avoiding to distinguish the average socialist activists from the Red Brigades terrorists. What would a viewer who's unaware of italian recent history see? "All leftist are terrorists". A film that neofascists would absolutely love.
 
Oct 28, 2017
8,621
Yes. Because the film does very little (or nothing) to tell the Manson gang from average hippies. What if the viewer doesn't know well about Sharon Tate's murder and all the historical case of Charles Manson's family, or about american society issues in the 60s? What this unaware viewer is watching is a couple of american cowboys slaughtering evil drug addicted hippies. After seeing Rick Dalton throwing rants against hippies.
If i don't know the real facts (about which this film tells me nothing), all i see are hippie girls. Going crazy, because of drugs and lack of american values, i guess..
Maybe every person in USA knows about the whole story, because it's their recent history, but that's not the same in the rest of the world. Here in Italy, for example, i think only people who are very passionate about cinema know the story well enough to get everything this film is about. Many don't even know who Charles Manson was. It's like making a film about the murder of Aldo Moro in 70s Italy and totally avoiding to distinguish the average socialist activists from the Red Brigades terrorists. What would a viewer who's unaware of italian recent history see? "All leftist are terrorists". A film that neofascists would absolutely love.
Those women are clearly shown going to the residence with murderous intent so even if you are entirely ignorant of the Manson Family Murders, they were hardly some free-wheeling Make-Love-Not-Peace hippies being brutalized for no reason. They enter the house with the intent to kill the occupants, thus their subsequent obliteration is hardly offensive.

Granted, being familiar with their brutal, factual deeds makes their fictional beatings and deaths in this film much more enjoyable to the viewer (Very similar to the way Hitler and his henchmen are slaughtered in Inglorious Bastards) but there's no way you can possibly mistake these rampant sociopaths for non-violent hippies.
 

CatWizard85

Member
Mar 18, 2019
26
Italy
Those women are clearly shown going to the residence with murderous intent so even if you are entirely ignorant of the Manson Family Murders, they were hardly some free-wheeling Make-Love-Not-Peace hippies being brutalized for no reason. They enter the house with the intent to kill the occupants, thus their subsequent obliteration is hardly offensive.
Let's say i make a film in which my protagonist constantly rants about dirty black people and then in the ending i show the only black characters in the film planning a brutal murder, until the protagonists beat them to death and burn them alive with great satisfaction. Of course they are evil criminals and you cannot possibly mistake them for good non-violent black people. But still...that would be heavily cringe-worthy.
 

KyrieEleison

Avenger
Dec 31, 2017
918
Let's say i make a film in which my protagonist constantly rants about dirty black people and then in the ending i show the only black characters in the film planning a brutal murder, until the protagonists beat them to death and burn them alive with great satisfaction. Of course they are evil criminals and you cannot possibly mistake them for good non-violent black people. But still...that would be heavily cringe-worthy.
Why don't you stick to the historical facts, rather than shifting the goalposts? Indiscriminately killing an innocent pregnant woman on a drug-induced whim, on the pretense that is was instigating a revolution is one of the lowest acts of cowardice.

edit: We officially have a Pregnant Woman Killer Defense Force!
 

CatWizard85

Member
Mar 18, 2019
26
Italy
Why don't you stick to the historical facts, rather than shifting the goalposts? Indiscriminately killing an innocent pregnant woman on a drug-induced whim, on the pretense that is was instigating a revolution is one of the lowest acts of cowardice.

edit: We officially have a Pregnant Woman Killer Defense Force!
Because the film doesn't tell me anything about historical facts. If i don't already know the story, after i watched this film i learned almost nothing about it. I just watched dirty evil hippies getting what they deserve. Like grandpa Simpson would say.
Oh please, i'm not defending anyone, i'm saying that this film has a cringy conservative vibe in the way it presents the facts.
 

KyrieEleison

Avenger
Dec 31, 2017
918
Because the film doesn't tell me anything about historical facts. If i don't already know the story, after i watched this film i learned almost nothing about it. I just watched dirty evil hippies getting what they deserve. Like grandpa Simpson would say.
Oh please, i'm not defending anyone, i'm saying that this film has a cringy conservative vibe in the way it presents the facts.
Being ignorant of the history is not an excuse. Also, you went to watch a Tarantino film...... what exactly were you expecting? (The illusion of Dalton burning Nazis in the beginning of the film was big hint where the film was heading.)

Your definition of "A cringy conservative vibe" == two apolitical central characters (both intoxicated) involved in a cartoon-killing of stereotype hippies
 

CatWizard85

Member
Mar 18, 2019
26
Italy
I was expecting nothing specific, i knew the historical facts and i have always liked Tarantino's films. It's clear you don't want to understand what i'm saying, so it's useless to repeat. Besides, i'm certainly not the only one pointing at this issue, also among the critics.
 

Dice

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,925
Canada
I dont get why Margot Robbie was in the movie. The whole plot line felt insulting to women.
Sharon Tate was murdered in real life so the movie sorta sets her up as a red herring to the main story. I mean, she technically was, since Quintin decided to retool history to swap the Manson Family Murder of Tate into us just looking into her life as a normal human being, and not a tragic celebrity.

I don't understand what you mean it's insulting to women.
If my having men take centre stage, then I sorta agree with that in a general scale (certainly QT flicks which often go for a male majority), but this film was more about a bond between "bros" and its place in an alternate history.

...but there's no way you can possibly mistake these rampant sociopaths for non-violent hippies.
Yep. Nothing about the film visiting Spahn Ranch makes it seem casual or like a friendly hippie commune.
 

Danteyke223

Banned
Oct 24, 2018
780
Sharon Tate was murdered in real life so the movie sorta sets her up as a red herring to the main story. I mean, she technically was, since Quintin decided to retool history to swap the Manson Family Murder of Tate into us just looking into her life as a normal human being, and not a tragic celebrity.

I don't understand what you mean it's insulting to women.
If my having men take centre stage, then I sorta agree with that in a general scale (certainly QT flicks which often go for a male majority), but this film was more about a bond between "bros" and its place in an alternate history.
I mean its insulting that her entire arc for the movie is her acting like a clutz and smiling, not doing anything and we barely see her. Her lines are one sentences, meanwhile everyone else gets well a lot of lines and an actual arc.

Same goes for the whole Margaret Qualley part.... total waste
 

Dice

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,925
Canada
I mean its insulting that her entire arc for the movie is her acting like a clutz and smiling, not doing anything and we barely see her. Her lines are one sentences, meanwhile everyone else gets well a lot of lines and an actual arc.

Same goes for the whole Margaret Qualley part.... total waste
I didn't find it insulting.

She goes through the motions of a normal day and it shows her as an innocent character and in an innocuous way. The message might be a little lost if you don't know who she is, and what actually happens to her. But I don't think Quentin Tarantino wanted to show her as either this big glitzy celebrity, or as a tragic murder victim (and in this film's case, she wasn't either of those things despite how other films enjoy parading these tropes). She was just normal person living her life. The set up for her is to relate it to the Manson murders – which she is totally at the centre of – and how that history is changed because of her noisy (fictional) neighbours. This film is simultaneously ALL about Tate and not at all about Tate. Historically this is "her film" in a way, but with QT's "historical rewrite" it makes Rick and Dalton the key players and Tate as the victim that never was (even though she was). They had to walk a fine line and I think the movie is respectful to Tate in that sense by grounding her character.

If they make a bio pic for her, I expect there to be tears and drama and plastered Hollywood smiles. But this wasn't that, this movie is just a strange slice-of-life odyssey.

I feel people keep forgetting how this movie is trying to "set things up". Cliff sparring with Bruce Lee is meant to show that he's an equal or some sort of capable fighter; which is why when the final showdown at Rick's house happens, he's already demonstrated that he is capable of dealing with tough situations. Meanwhile, Rick's "rage issues" are scattered throughout the film, probably most beneficially was when the Manson's were looking at Tate's house and Rick comes out to yell at them about the noise they were making, it's then when the Manson's change their target [to him], and because we know Rick's sorta crazy, him grabbing a flame thrower at the end shouldn't be....well, totally out of his wheel house.

Pussycat (Margaret Q.) was a device for how people meet people. Yeah Cliff was initially attracted to her, but then they get to talking to her and takes her home to the Spahn Ranch, which he knew because he worked there and had an old acquaintance there he wanted to see. This set-up is a big deal because it is key in establishing the Manson Family as key players in the film's historically-relevant finale (and the way things work out for them all meeting feels a little less random).

Most of the film's major elements tie into other important parts, even if the connection feels small or arbitrary.

Small aside: But I respected how small they made Polanski's role in the film. I don't even think his character ever comes into proper view without being blurred, facing away, or obstructed.
 
Last edited:

poptire

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,727
Tate's character was a celebration of life and the only reason this movie exists. To say she didn't matter is a misreading of the film.
 
Nov 9, 2017
2,122
I don't see this movie as a glorification of Hollywood, but a fairy tale that asks "What if Hollywood were actually a decent place that could be fondly remembered instead of the cesspit of corruption and debauchery that it actually is."
 

Dice

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,925
Canada
I don't see this movie as a glorification of Hollywood, but a fairy tale that asks "What if Hollywood were actually a decent place that could be fondly remembered instead of the cesspit of corruption and debauchery that it actually is."
Does it?? I mean it's pretty, but I don't feel it really glorifies it (I realize you said this at first, but your own second part of that sentence doesn't really support that).

Rick is going through tons of motions between getting his "look" altered for a part, he's worried about becoming a washed-up actor (and kinda/sorta was). Cliff lives in a trailer and works as a stuntman/butler/errand boy to Rick, and was about to get laid off because Rick couldn't afford him.

Hollywood is glamorous and lovely when/if you make it... but it also knows how to chew you up and spit you out.
 

Drewton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,159
Sony's still uploading promotional videos for this encouraging people to see it in theaters, seems like the home release is still a ways off. I wonder if it's delayed because it released in the UK in mid August.
 

KyrieEleison

Avenger
Dec 31, 2017
918
I mean its insulting that her entire arc for the movie is her acting like a clutz and smiling, not doing anything and we barely see her. Her lines are one sentences, meanwhile everyone else gets well a lot of lines and an actual arc.

Same goes for the whole Margaret Qualley part.... total waste
I reject your hypotheses
 

rycisko

Banned
Nov 1, 2017
175
So this movie just released digitally and I finally got a chance to watch it after missing it in theaters. God damnit I think it's my 2nd favorite Tarantino film...

I knew Pitt & DiCaprio were going to be great together but I really didnt think they would be THAT good. The movie is actually way funnier than I assumed, but mixed so well with just such solid acting.

The set pieces were insane, the way QT nailed the look and feel of old Hollywood, the entire movie just sucks you right in and I was mesmerized the entire time.

A lot of people compared this to Jackie Brown but I think it's quite a bit better. The slowest scenes for me were pretty much anything involving Robbie but even then she nailed the character. Watching herself in the theater shouldnt have kept my eyes open like it did. It didn't drag like I thought some scenes in JB did.

And obviously, the ending was fucking bat shit crazy and I enjoyed every second of it. Cant wait to view this a second time and see if I come down from this high but god damn, Rick fuckin Dalton!

My QT Top 5: Pulp Fiction, OUATIH, Reservoir Dogs, Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill 2 then 1. Django with the honorable mention.
 

Chris McQueen

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,378
London
It's currently 8:30 am and I just got done finishing one of my favourite director's latest movie.

That was honestly one of the worst movies I've ever watched. What the actual fuck was even the point of anything?

I'm gonna have to sleep with this for now, I'll see what you guys thought in a couple hours.
 

Drewton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,159
It's currently 8:30 am and I just got done finishing one of my favourite director's latest movie.

That was honestly one of the worst movies I've ever watched. What the actual fuck was even the point of anything?

I'm gonna have to sleep with this for now, I'll see what you guys thought in a couple hours.


Maybe it just wasn’t what you were expecting. I assume you know the history behind it with Manson and Tate?

Just bought it on digital, hyped to finally rewatch it. It’s been a long wait and it’s a nice surprise it’s out a few days earlier, before The Irishman now.
 
Last edited:

spx54

Member
Mar 21, 2019
2,696
I can't fucking wait to rewatch this, feels like the type of movie that rewards multiple viewings
 

Smash-It Stan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,243
Solid 4/10 for me. Was about to turn it off before Cliff went to the ranch which kept me watching because I thought the film was finally going somewhere. Big horror vibes going off...just for nothing to happen, again. Whole point was just to introduce the hippies and maybe come back to them if Cliff wanted to free his buddy.

You could chop an entire hour out and nothing would change. Cliffs weird fantasy about fighting Bruce...Lee(??) I guess was to show that this ordinary stuntman can kick serious ass. But why Bruce Lee of all people? Just because he showed Margot Robbie's character some yoga moves for her movie? Couldn't QT have had Cliff do that with the hippies instead of it being one sided? He clearly feels very guilty about killing his wife while at the same time feeling justified but it overall was a strange sequence.

Why was Margot Robbie in the movie at all? Did they need such a huge star to get the message across that Rick and Cliff live next to famous superstars? Who the fuck puts their bare dirty ass feet up against a windshield, or even at a movie theater? Was that QT's little own way of showing famous people aren't that different from weirdo hippies?

QT is good at showing people just do random ordinary things to develop character, but having Margot Robbie see a movie and have no one recognize her and that entire 10 minute process, again just to do nothing? I guess Rick is the only frustrated person in this movie, was it to show he's a glass half empty while his much cooler neighbors are glass half full people?

That ending was absolutely insane and imo felt super out of place in this incredibly boring nothing happening movie. How did the hippies even know Rick and Cliff came back from Italy that day? After Cliff fucked up one of them why'd they wait 6 months? It's like QT went "oh yea this is ME directing the film I need to put something in here to remind the audience who directed this shit" but it's the ending rofl.

Leo acted in 10 different meta films/TV shows for this movie and I feel bad for him, playing a insecure actor in the 60s was well done by him but it was just overkill with how much we were shown of his actual work. Meanwhile Margot Robbie got the easiest paycheck of her life for smiling and waving in-between Cliff driving around and Rick crying/working. I figured the Playboy mansion would set up a fallout in that house with Roman being kicked out and the other short guy predicting all this and waiting for Margot with open arms.

Very disappointing movie, I almost want my time back because QT didn't know what to do with his 2:40 run time clearly.
 

dragonbane

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,873
Germany
Solid 4/10 for me. Was about to turn it off before Cliff went to the ranch which kept me watching because I thought the film was finally going somewhere. Big horror vibes going off...just for nothing to happen, again. Whole point was just to introduce the hippies and maybe come back to them if Cliff wanted to free his buddy.

You could chop an entire hour out and nothing would change. Cliffs weird fantasy about fighting Bruce...Lee(??) I guess was to show that this ordinary stuntman can kick serious ass. But why Bruce Lee of all people? Just because he showed Margot Robbie's character some yoga moves for her movie? Couldn't QT have had Cliff do that with the hippies instead of it being one sided? He clearly feels very guilty about killing his wife while at the same time feeling justified but it overall was a strange sequence.

Why was Margot Robbie in the movie at all? Did they need such a huge star to get the message across that Rick and Cliff live next to famous superstars? Who the fuck puts their bare dirty ass feet up against a windshield, or even at a movie theater? Was that QT's little own way of showing famous people aren't that different from weirdo hippies?

QT is good at showing people just do random ordinary things to develop character, but having Margot Robbie see a movie and have no one recognize her and that entire 10 minute process, again just to do nothing? I guess Rick is the only frustrated person in this movie, was it to show he's a glass half empty while his much cooler neighbors are glass half full people?

That ending was absolutely insane and imo felt super out of place in this incredibly boring nothing happening movie. How did the hippies even know Rick and Cliff came back from Italy that day? After Cliff fucked up one of them why'd they wait 6 months? It's like QT went "oh yea this is ME directing the film I need to put something in here to remind the audience who directed this shit" but it's the ending rofl.

Leo acted in 10 different meta films/TV shows for this movie and I feel bad for him, playing a insecure actor in the 60s was well done by him but it was just overkill with how much we were shown of his actual work. Meanwhile Margot Robbie got the easiest paycheck of her life for smiling and waving in-between Cliff driving around and Rick crying/working. I figured the Playboy mansion would set up a fallout in that house with Roman being kicked out and the other short guy predicting all this and waiting for Margot with open arms.

Very disappointing movie, I almost want my time back because QT didn't know what to do with his 2:40 run time clearly.
You definetly need to research the Manson family murders and Sharon Tate which Margot Robbie played. The whole movie is contextualized by these events and build around it and its effects on Hollywood culminating in the fairy tale "once upon a time" ending. You definetly missed a lot without it.

The hippies don't come for Rick and only go after him accidentally. Every Margot Robbie scene is there to show an innocent happy life while at the same time is meant to build dread of what's to come. The film builds that dread of the horrific things to come over its whole duration but then spectacularly angringly suberts it which you sadly missed. Taratino has never been more pissed
 
Last edited:

Arkestry

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,537
London
You definetly need to research the Manson family murders and Sharon Tate which Margot Robbie played. The whole movie is contextualized by these events and build around it and its effects on Hollywood culminating in the fairy tale ending
I'm sorry but I had full knowledge of the murders and who Sharon Tate was, and I still thought the movie was flabby, self indulgent and mostly boring. Even in context it's nothing but a vanity project for Tarantino to live out his wierd rewriting history fantasies.
 

Sabretooth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,618
India
I can't make up my mind whether I like this movie or not. It's got an amazing soundtrack, several excellent scenes, and it's got a really great vibe to it that never lets up, it just leaves you drenched in atmosphere.

On the other hand, I gotta agree that it feels... hollow? Like it's missing the meat, or the core, or what have you. I don't know. I like it for its atmosphere and aesthetic, and that's usually the most important thing for me, so I guess I like it on the overall.
 

Smash-It Stan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,243
You definetly need to research the Manson family murders and Sharon Tate which Margot Robbie played. The whole movie is contextualized by these events and build around it and its effects on Hollywood culminating in the fairy tale "once upon a time" ending. You definetly missed a lot without it.

The hippies don't come for Rick and only go after him accidentally. Every Margot Robbie scene is there to show an innocent happy life while at the same time is meant to build dread of what's to come. The film builds that dread of the horrific things to come over its whole duration but then spectacularly angringly suberts it which you sadly missed. Taratino has never been more pissed
So this is actually a Margot Robbie movie and there was homework needed to understand the movie? I thought that was the movies job...why's Rick in it at all then if this is actually about Charles Mansons cult even though he wasn't in the movie and the hippies were just normal hippies up until the end?

So you're telling me the hippies aren't just regular hippies, their apart of a cult, run by Charles Manson, and they went to Ricks neighborhood looking for Margot. Instead of actually doing anything, they sit outside his house in their loud ass car long enough to get shoo'd away by Leonardo, and then they turn their sights on him. This is not doing the film any favours at all right now. The ENTIRE film is about what happened IRL to Sharon Tate?? But if you take Tate's family out of the movie and replaced them with ANY other celebrity, nothing changes. You can just say the Hippies were waiting for Rick and Cliff to get back so they can get their revenge. The crux of the film is dependent on knowing these people and what happened to them IRL but then changing them doesn't actually hurt the movie...

I went into the film 100% blind, never watched a trailer and I sorta remember reading the charles manson cult thing now back before the movie came out but I didn't even remember that till the end of this post. I think QT should've let someone else direct with himself being a writer.