Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - the nineth-ish film from Quentin Tarantino

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - the nineth-ish film from Quentin Tarantino

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

When Cliff goes into the shed to get stuff to fix the antenna do we see the flamethrower hanging there? I didn't notice it, but I want looking.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2019 02:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:59

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

General Dog posted:

Yes, the camera even pans down and lingers on it for a second.

That makes sense.

When Rick went into the shed I knew exactly what he was getting, but I didn't remember seeing it earlier.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2019 02:54

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Timeless Appeal posted:

I didn't mind what the movie was doing. Exaggerated or not, Lee being a bit of a blowhard is fine. They still make him clearly a badass and follow the Batman rule of it mostly being a tie. Honestly, I think it was kind of empowering in how it sort demystifies Lee. He's not some zen warrior or some other orientalist cliche. He's an athlete and an actor, but above all a kid in his 20s, a person of color in the 1960s, who for the moment has the world by a string. gently caress yeah he's going to gloat and ham it up!

My theater experience was a little lovely for that section with a lot of folks laughing a bit excessively at Lee's sounds. Like I get in the context of the scene, the fact that Lee is using the sounds he uses in his films is supposed to show that he's putting on a show and doesn't take the fight seriously... It's supposed to be a bit of a joke but ya know... some people were laughing a bit too hard.

These are basically my thoughts and experience.

Bruce Lee was cocky and charming. He was also a badass. They showed both of those sides of him. Was he a bit of a prop to boost Tarantino's badass? Sure. But that's fine. I especially liked the little flashback moment later of him happily training Sharon Tate.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2019 05:19

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

SidneyIsTheKiller posted:

But I do dread the idea of witnessing motherfucking Brad Pitt just own Bruce outright because he's just apparently the ultimate badass or whatever and having an audience laugh just a little too much at it.

You don't have to worry about this. You may get a lovely audience that laughs at him though, and that would suck.

Walter Chaw's timeline has a few threads with some good thoughts on the film and Lee's portrayal in particular:

https://twitter.com/mangiotto/status/1154813323151577093?s=19

# ¿ Jul 29, 2019 00:01

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Alan Smithee posted:

What was the deal with maya hawkes character

She got cold feet.

Tarantino's fetish strikes again!

# ¿ Jul 29, 2019 22:59

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

mary had a little clam posted:

I've been going back and forth on OUAT and enjoying the discussion in this thread a lot. However, I've also been following some interesting discussions on Twitter regarding the film and this one caught my eye:

spoilers:

Obviously YMMV as to whether you feel like that's a persuasive reading, but I do find it compelling to think about how this is Tarantino's first post-Weinstein, post-MeToo film and it's kind of about how loving coooool Hollywood is. The only important women in it are either Angelic Others (Tate, the Precocious Girl) who exist to validate or assist the male protagonist or else Murderous Tricksters. Cliff maybe murdering is bitch of a wife is one of the funniest running gags in the film, and the film is having its most fun when two of the Manson Family women are brutally tortured to death.

Apart from analyzing the film, it does raise some interesting questions about QT's state of mind as women all over Hollywood are making trouble for his friends and taking some of the power back.

Doesn't Steve McQueen say that Polanski is a prick and will inevitably gently caress it up with Sharon Tate? I don't think choosing to save Tate means that he's "saving" Polanski at all. I think it's telling that Polanski and Manson both have incredibly similar roles and presences in the film.

I don't know, I feel like any argument I've seen tying this to #MeToo or being anti-millenial/zoomer has been a real stretch. It's definitely a reactionary film though, so I'm open to the idea of it, I just haven't seen any that weren't giant leaps.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2019 17:46

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Steve Yun posted:

I got in an argument about the movie

Was that Sharon Tate or Margot Robbie in Wrecking Crew?

It was the real Sharon Tate

# ¿ Jul 31, 2019 12:45

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

iamsosmrt posted:

This movie isn't good. I described in a previous post yesterday my explanations.

I've enjoyed a lot of Tarantino movies, Pulp Fiction has been one of my favorite movies since I saw it as a 10 year old, and I think he's gone too far into his self indulgence. I also think a lot of people have become such fanboys that they'll lap up his poo poo no matter what he does. From reviews and reactions I've seen since I watched it yesterday, a lot of people blatantly overlook the same problems they'd have with other movies, just because it's Quentin and it's as he intended.

This was a very well made and beautiful work of cinematic masturbatory dreck. 5/10. I actually think if this was edited down into a tight, 90 film centered squarely on Brad and Leo's friendship and how they inadvertently interact with the Manson poo poo, it'd probably be pretty awesome.

If you edited this post down to why you didn't like the movie and left out the part where everyone who did like it are fanboys lying to themselves it'd probably be pretty awesome.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2019 14:47

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

bows1 posted:

no it was full of bravado and a little cringey, but that also doesn't mean that Bruce Lee is a complete fraud and a joke

Yeah, he's cocky but he's not a fraud. That's obvious from, you know, the movie.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2019 18:37

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Vince MechMahon posted:

Really?

Yeah

# ¿ Jul 31, 2019 18:45

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Nail Rat posted:

Sharon Tate's sister hated that scene in particular and said she would never be that self indulgent to go to her own movies and bask in the audience reaction, fwiw. That said Margot Robbie did a great job with what she was given, for better or worse.

Where did you read this?

# ¿ Aug 6, 2019 03:54

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Blast Fantasto posted:

She 100% says Natalie in the movie, having seen it twice now and specifically looking for it the second time.

I just got back from seeing this again. Cliff's wife either says:

Natalie my sister said, "He's a loser"

or

"Natalie," my sister said, "He's a loser"

Since she's credited as Billie Booth I'm inclined to go with her sister being named Natalie.

# ¿ Aug 7, 2019 04:46

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

I love Bruce Lee, but I didn't mind his portrayal in this. He was definitely cocky, but he seemed like a pretty cocky dude in real life. He also gets a couple of really good moments during the fight (when he finds out Cliff might have killed his wife, when he balks at Zoe Bell saying he was getting his rear end kicked) and a sweet moment with Sharon later.

I think Polanski gets a much worse portrayal. He basically gets the same treatment that Manson gets.

# ¿ Aug 13, 2019 09:30

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

possibly hot take but he still hasn't topped these three

I'd put Inglourious among them, but pretty much.

I went through a bit of an anti-Reservoir Dogs phase for a while, but when I revisited it it's still tight as hell.

# ¿ Aug 19, 2019 23:32

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

a new study bible! posted:

I don't agree with any of your character read here, but I found it interesting because I read Booth as being completely insincere about the "old friend" thing at Spahn Ranch. I believe that he was checking on George to make sure the hippies weren't exploiting him, but I doubt that his motivations were noble. Seems like he maybe just wanted to stir some trouble with the hippies, but the whole friend angle seemed pretty phony. I doubt that Booth is friends with anyone other than Dalton.

This seems like a hell of a stretch. He was definitely exaggerating being an "old friend" of Spahn's, but it wasn't so he can stir poo poo up with the hippies. He seemed to sincerely be checking on the guy's well-being.

BigglesSWE posted:

At my screening, most of the audience was laughing all throughout the massacre at the end. That was probably the most disturbing aspect of watching the movie.

I saw it with audiences that laughed, but a lot of that was peppered with audible gasps and cringes and winces. It's tough to watch, but it's also pretty cathartic to see some psycho killers get hosed up.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2019 06:26

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

H13 posted:

And a Brad Pitt voice-over.

Kurt Russell voiceover.

# ¿ Aug 24, 2019 02:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:59

LesterGroans: Jun 9, 2009; It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

In general I'm kind of whatever on Leo, but his performance in this film was great. Easily the funniest he's been, except for maybe Wolf of Wall Street.

Between Ford v Ferrari, OUATIH and The Irishman it's been a good year for movies about pals being friends.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2019 02:58

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - the nineth-ish film from Quentin Tarantino