Movies Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Teaser Trailer

[Guest]

2 hours ago, TwinIon said:

None of this is really a comment on the quality of the film itself, just my overwhelming impression on why it got made and how it came to be the way it is.

100%. QT made a movie that allows him to live in a time, as a filmmaker especially, that he worships.

[johnny]

This was a good movie. It’s not that cohesive with Tate’s side-plot. But everything with Leo and Pitt is fantastic. I love how QT stretches out some of the scenes. Tate walking to the book store and then the movies. Leo talking to the girl actor (NOT actress!). It makes a regular scene something that makes me sit here and think about it. 

 

Everything with the Manson cult was awesome. Even the quick scenes they were in when Pitt is driving by. The ending, holy fuck 

 

Spoiler

My friend and I about climaxed when he pulled out the fucking flamethrower lmaoooo. 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, johnny said:

 

  Hide contents

My friend and I about climaxed when he pulled out the fucking flamethrower lmaoooo. 

 

Spoiler

It is a GREAT moment and booth audiences I saw it with roared when it happens. On the second watch, one of the things that I loved was how when Cliff goes into the shed to get stuff to fix the antenna, the camera lingers for a moment on the flame thrower leaned up against the wall by the door. Lots of other little details pop out the second time around.

 

[Greatoneshere]

I really enjoyed the film. It was impeccably directed, acted, shot, scored, edited, etc. It definitely felt like Tarantino's hangout movie, filled to the brim with nostalgia and excellent production design. But it didn't (by its very nature) have the ooomph and intensity of Tarantino's other films and so I'm not sure I'll be revisiting it as often as his other films - this felt a lot more Paul Thomas Anderson-esque with it's production design, cinematography and random parts with narration (watching this immediately made me think of Inherent Vice in more ways than one). I will say this was one of his out and out funniest films, with the Bruce Lee flashback being particularly memorable (I love Bruce Lee but I see nothing racist about the portrayal - that's who he was). And the ending is something I very much was glad to see - Tarantino will never pull his punches, thank God.

 

Like with all Tarantino movies, it's going to take me a few viewings and a few years to truly figure out how I feel about the film. My first viewing of Inglourious Basterds in theaters was pretty meh and now I find it to be his current masterpiece (though Pulp Fiction may always remain my personal favorite). 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Speaking of Tarantino, it seems that the Netflix "miniseries version" of The Hateful Eight contains the footage that was only present in the 70mm "roadshow" version of the original theatrical release.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, SFLUFAN said:

Speaking of Tarantino, it seems that the Netflix "miniseries version" of The Hateful Eight contains the footage that was only present in the 70mm "roadshow" version of the original theatrical release.

 

Correct, it's been up on Netflix for a bit now. It and Death Proof are his only films (so far) to have ever received extended versions (unless you count Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair).

[SaysWho?]

41 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Correct, it's been up on Netflix for a bit now. It and Death Proof are his only films (so far) to have ever received extended versions (unless you count Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair).

 

I never saw Death Proof because I was bored with Planet Terror in Grindhouse, so I just stayed for the funny trailers and left.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

I really enjoyed the film. It was impeccably directed, acted, shot, scored, edited, etc.

I think it’s one of his worst edited films. We continue to feel the effects of losing Menke, who I think tamped down some of Tarantino’s worse habits in regards to flow.

[Bloodporne]

I was going to go see it this weekend but then found out that my local indie cinema is playing Blue Velvet. Sorry Quentin, Lynch takes precedence and I have to vet someone's taste in movies!

[skillzdadirecta]

41 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think it’s one of his worst edited films. We continue to feel the effects of losing Menke, who I think tamped down some of Tarantino’s worse habits in regards to flow.

 

And even SHE was limited in what she could do to reign him in. Tarantino is exhibit A in how hard it is to edit a director who also wrote the script. Screenwriters are NOTORIOUSLY hard to edit which is why for the most part they are not welcome in the edit room. I will say that this film flowed better for me than Basterd, Django and Hateful Eight, but that might be because I was more into this film's subject matter and setting than those other films. You could have still trimmed 20 to 40 minutes from the film and not lost anything.

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I never saw Death Proof because I was bored with Planet Terror in Grindhouse, so I just stayed for the funny trailers and left.

 

I personally think Tarantino's extended cut is underrated. Worth seeing once at least.

 

1 hour ago, sblfilms said:

I think it’s one of his worst edited films. We continue to feel the effects of losing Menke, who I think tamped down some of Tarantino’s worse habits in regards to flow.

 

I found the extended cut flows better, but it's also longer.

 

In general, I think people forget that Tarantino's languid tone and overly-long scenes are part of the point, in that he keeps stuff in the film that don't have a point other than to continue to establish tone and mood. It's something that people should enjoy about him or if they don't enjoy him they should assume he's gonna make it feel long  anyway because that's part of his style. In the same way there are people who hate Nicolas Winding Refn or Terence Malick for also being slow, showy, pretentious, etc. others love them as directors because they direct like they direct, even for the reasons people don't like, like Tarantino not having a "good" editor. Trust me, he does (Fred Raskin), Tarantino likes his movies this way though, and I personally enjoy getting to sink in and live in his movies even though that doesn't exonerate him from poor editing criticisms, but we should all go in understanding that he has a style and so criticism within his style is more useful/insightful/relevant because we know what kinds of movies Refn, Tarantino, Malick, Nolan, etc. make to one degree or another in terms of style, editing, tone, etc and to continue to criticisize them for what they don't do just seems redundant. Just my .02. 

[Guest]

Ehhhh, I think @skillzdadirectais right that the primary issue here is a writer/director who falls in love with everything he wrote and is unwilling to trim things back. I like the lingering and sometimes even meandering scenes, but you need somebody in the edit bay to say “that’s enough” and it feels like QT doesn’t have that anymore.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Ehhhh, I think @skillzdadirectais right that the primary issue here is a writer/director who falls in love with everything he wrote and is unwilling to trim things back. I like the lingering and sometimes even meandering scenes, but you need somebody in the edit bay to say “that’s enough” and it feels like QT doesn’t have that anymore.

 

Writers will fight for every word they wrote to make it into the cut. Director's who aren't writers first and foremost are willing to cut more than directors who are more precious with their words. Tarantino is definitely the latter. His scripts, by his own admission, are more akin to novels than traditional film  scripts and he deliberately writes them that way. He's also a director who grew up not just on films, but on episodic TV and his films tend to reflect that. It's one of the reasons why I would love to see him do a season of television so he can work in a medium that I think personally is more suited to his storytelling sensibilities.

 

Often times his films can feel bloated and a ten episode series wouldn't feel that way. It's not just about setting mood and tone. He is in love with literally EVERYTHING he writes and shoots whether it serves the overall narrative or not. That's cool and that's his prerogative... but its the duty of a strong and trusted editor and more importantly, a strong producer, to reign that instinct in. Again, OUTIH is for me, his tightest film since the first Kill Bill as I didn't feel the runtime as much as I did in some of his more recent films. But again, it may have more to do with my fascination with the era and setting and less with the actual filmmaking craft of the film. I know friends of mine who think that this film is just as bloated as his other more recent films 

[Bloodporne]

I only saw it once but I remember distinctly feeling like Django's last 40 or so minutes were a bit what-the-fuck in terms of editing. I found it to be especially so when QT shows up in that godawful, even-shittier-acting-than-usual cameo as an...Australian? I didn't like the flow of that film's last segment at all but will revisit it sometime soon actually it's long overdue. 

 

And don't get me wrong, I like some meandering. I love Werner Herzog, Terence Malick, a ton of European arthouse and so on. I just thought this felt odd in the film's overall context, like a sudden shift. 

[Greatoneshere]

2 hours ago, sblfilms said:

Ehhhh, I think @skillzdadirectais right that the primary issue here is a writer/director who falls in love with everything he wrote and is unwilling to trim things back. I like the lingering and sometimes even meandering scenes, but you need somebody in the edit bay to say “that’s enough” and it feels like QT doesn’t have that anymore.

 

I mean, I don't dispute that - as I said, he deserves editing criticism like any director, it's just important to take his style into account is all, and that scenes that don't seem purposeful actually are on repeat viewings, etc. But some of his movies and some of his scenes certainly do feel overlong, but I think Fred Raskin is as good as Sally Menke, I just think Tarantino has become more verbose and longer as time has gone on, has intentionally let scenes drift on more and more. Think about it this way: Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are both 1 minute longer (154 minutes) than Inglourious Basterds (153 minutes). Those were his second and third films. They are way longer than his later Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 (111 and 136 minutes repectively) as well as Death Proof (113 minutes) and only 7-11 minutes shorter than Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight. His movies have always been long.

 

Now, you can have short movies that are edited really poorly and really well and you can have long films that are edited really poorly and really well, I grant that. But I don't see much difference in terms of length or style of editing between Sally Menke's work (Reservoir Dogs through Inglourious Basterds) and Fred Raskin (Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight, and Once Upon A Time in Hollywood). I think it's mostly Tarantino in that sense. But I do agree Menke is the better editor, I still feel, for instance, that Jackie Brown feels slower (in good and bad ways) than Death Proof, Inglourious Basterds, or Django Unchained, so I don't know.  

[Rodimus]

It was a fun movie. I had expectations of where the story was going to go based on history but don't do that.

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

5 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I never saw Death Proof because I was bored with Planet Terror in Grindhouse, so I just stayed for the funny trailers and left.

If you thought Planet Terror was boring, Death Proof would put you in a fucking coma for 10 years. 

[SaysWho?]

This really did play with expectations because I didn't see the ending coming.

 

At the same time,

Spoiler

I was happy to see it end the way it did. Yes, I loved the flamethrower part, too. In my head, I was thinking Pitt was once again playing stunt double since he's not the actor and it's not his house yet he was front lines to take on the violent hippies.

 

[SaysWho?]

On 7/29/2019 at 1:07 PM, skillzdadirecta said:

Yeah I didn't get that... one, underarm hair starts growing when you're like 12. Two, I don't think she thought anything of it... any ongoing gag from that time was that hippie chicks didn't shave their armpits. That's the gag that Tarantino was going for. I don't think she was flashing underarm hair to show that she was an adult. It was more of a sight gag.

 

Anyway apparently she DID have a bunion

 

 

Just looked her up. She's in Death Stranding. Cool!

[Greatoneshere]

4 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Just looked her up. She's in Death Stranding. Cool!

 

She was in The Leftovers as well. 

[Moa]

Without a doubt this movie is Tarantino's masterpiece. The way it weaves history, myth, abject fiction, and viewer expectation together like nothing I've ever seen. I have a ton of thoughts on the movie but it was so damn dense that I'm struggling to organize myself. One thing that I particularly appreciated about the movie was how much it de-emphasized the murderers. Prior to the ending, I'm pretty sure Tex was the only killer formally introduced, Manson himself is shown only briefly in a throwaway scene (although the historical importance of the scene is significant), and I believe his last name is never spoken, and the family is shown only through the lens of other characters.

 

Spoiler

I also really enjoyed the interplay between fantasy and historical fact throughout the movie, and that in the end fiction triumphed over reality because this is Hollywood, after all.

 

[SaysWho?]

3 hours ago, Moa said:

Without a doubt this movie is Tarantino's masterpiece. The way it weaves history, myth, abject fiction, and viewer expectation together like nothing I've ever seen. I have a ton of thoughts on the movie but it was so damn dense that I'm struggling to organize myself. One thing that I particularly appreciated about the movie was how much it de-emphasized the murderers. Prior to the ending, I'm pretty sure Tex was the only killer formally introduced, Manson himself is shown only briefly in a throwaway scene (although the historical importance of the scene is significant), and I believe his last name is never spoken, and the family is shown only through the lens of other characters.

 

  Hide contents

I also really enjoyed the interplay between fantasy and historical fact throughout the movie, and that in the end fiction triumphed over reality because this is Hollywood, after all.

 

 

I figured that Manson scene actually happened, but I don't know what the significance is besides that being how he found out Tate lived there (I think).

[Moa]

8 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I figured that Manson scene actually happened, but I don't know what the significance is besides that being how he found out Tate lived there (I think).

Broadly speaking, prior to Polanski and Tate moving into the house a record producer, Terry Melcher, lived there who Manson had auditioned for but ultimately Melcher didn't produce his music. In the scene Manson is looking for Melcher but is confronted by the people who are there and he sees Sharon Tate for the first and only time. Tate was unnerved enough by this encounter to describe him as a creepy little man. This is the only time that Manson or any of the family members had contact with Tate or any of the other victims and partially explains why the murders happened at the particular house.

[Bloodporne]

Finally went to see this Saturday night. I didn't get it, nor care for it, until the ending hit and I was utterly surprised by how well it tied this movie together and somehow turned it all around for me. 

 

I found it to be oddly sweet and sentimental, in a good way, for a Tarantino movie and especially found the last few minutes incredibly endearing. I've read a lot about the particular case and have a specific loathing for media portrayal and the bizarre "cool anti-hero" culture surrounding it all so to see it deconstructed and brought it back down to earth in such a weirdly relatable way was very cool to me. 

 

I didn't care for the many little vignettes involving the TV work early on in the film as I thought it didn't help its pacing but I'll reserve ultimate judgment on that for a second viewing. Overall, I'm really looking forward to seeing it again actually with the end and overall feel in mind.

 

PS: The Bruce Lee thing was pretty fucking funny. 

[skillzdadirecta]

China Cancels Release of Once Upon a Time In Hollywood

 

Rumor is that Bruce Lee's daughter may have had a hand in this.

[Greatoneshere]

While I'm genuinely split on the Bruce Lee scene in terms of the protrayal (I mean, Bruce Lee was known to be like that, for good reason to be fair) it was easily one of the best scenes of the movie. The guy who played Bruce Lee killed it I thought and I laughed plenty, but in the right ways, if that makes sense. I think the later scene of him teaching Sharon Tate exonerates everything because that was a really sweet image, but I dunno. 

[skillzdadirecta]

5 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

While I'm genuinely split on the Bruce Lee scene in terms of the protrayal (I mean, Bruce Lee was known to be like that, for good reason to be fair) it was easily one of the best scenes of the movie. The guy who played Bruce Lee killed it I thought and I laughed plenty, but in the right ways, if that makes sense. I think the later scene of him teaching Sharon Tate exonerates everything because that was a really sweet image, but I dunno. 

 

Actually he wasn't which is why so many folks who knew him took exception to the scene particularly him talking shit about Muhammad Ali. He had a tremendous amount of respect for Ali and while Bruce was confident, he was never disrespectful.

 

Bruce Lee Protege Recalls His humilty

 

Quote

When it comes to martial arts and cinema, Bruce Lee is an icon. But his depiction in Quentin Tarantino’s “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” as an arrogant blowhard who brags about being able to “cripple” boxer Muhammad Ali could not be further from the truth, according to those closest to the real Lee. 

For one, Lee revered Ali and other boxers, often telling his martial students to mimic the ease and flow of Ali’s movements and footwork, according to Dan Inosanto, Lee’s protégé and training partner, speaking to Variety exclusively.

“Bruce Lee would have never said anything derogatory about Muhammad Ali because he worshiped the ground Muhammad Ali walked on. In fact, he was into boxing more so than martial arts,” says Inosanto, one of only three martial artists who were trained by Lee to teach Jeet Kune Do at Lee’s martial arts institutes. Jeet Kune Do is a philosophy of martial arts drawing from different disciplines invented by Lee that is often credited with paving the way for modern mixed martial arts

 

inosanto has not yet seen the film but says that from his memories of Lee on a working set, he never saw the San Francisco-born, Hong Kong-raised actor being braggadocious or engaging in scraps for the sake of showing off. He did, however, push back on portraying Asians practicing martial arts in a stereotypical way, what Inosanto calls the “chop-chop Hollywood stuff.”

“He was never, in my opinion, cocky. Maybe he was cocky in as far as martial arts because he was very sure of himself. He was worlds ahead of everyone else. But on a set, he’s not gonna show off,” recalls Inosanto, adding that it’s highly dubious that a stuntman could have gotten the best of the “Enter the Dragon” star. 

 

Also a lot of people, particularly Asians see Bruce as something of an icon for breaking down asian stereotypes in Hollywood so having him be the butt of a joke and getting his ass kicked by an ageing white dude rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way.

[Greatoneshere]

9 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

Actually he wasn't which is why so many folks who knew him took exception to the scene particularly him talking shit about Muhammad Ali. He had a tremendous amount of respect for Ali and while Bruce was confident, he was never disrespectful.

 

Bruce Lee Protege Recalls His humilty

 

 

Also a lot of people, particularly Asians see Bruce as something of an icon for breaking down asian stereotypes in Hollywood so having him be the butt of a joke and getting his ass kicked by an ageing white dude rubbed a lot of folks the wrong way.

 

I know these arguments - on his personality, I disagree. Every biography I read seems to match that often Lee felt he had to overcompensate being a minority, so had a more outsized personality to match. How that specifically exhibited itself may be up for debate, but it certainly existed. Like I said, I'm torn on how to feel about the scene, since the scene was great. Bruce Lee wasn't invincible either.

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

 

I know these arguments - on his personality, I disagree. Every biography I read seems to match that often Lee felt he had to overcompensate being a minority, so had a more outsized personality to match. How that specifically exhibited itself may be up for debate, but it certainly existed. Like I said, I'm torn on how to feel about the scene, since the scene was great. Bruce Lee wasn't invincible either.

 

I've probably read all of the same biographies you have and more and they all said the same thing. He was confident in himself but was never arrogant or disrespectful and the Muhammad Ali thing simply wouldn't have happened. Not only did Lee admire and respect Ali and Boxing, he incorporated and lot of boxing into his style of Jeet Kune Do specifically its footwork. Every martial artist and and celebrity who talks about Bruce talks about how genuine a person he was. THAT is not up for debate. 

 

I laughed at the scene when I saw it in the movie too because I knew what inspired some of it... "Judo" Gene Lebel has told a story like this a couple of times, he was a world class Judoka and was Rhonda Roussey's teacher. He introduced grappling to Bruce and impressed Bruce when he got him in a hold Bruce couldn't get out of... except by biting him. I took this incident as the inspiration for the Brad Pitt scene in OUATIH but I could be wrong... Bruce learned just as much from other martial artists as they did from him because he didn't believe in "styles."  Chuck Norris showed Bruce that high kicks could be used effectively in actual fights, something that Bruce disagreed with because he was trained in Wing Chun which has very few kicks that target above the waist.

 

My point in all of this is that Tarantino's portrayal of Bruce was WAAAAY off and that's fine because it was a fictional story... but he should have just said that instead of trying to justify his depiction of Bruce by saying "he's heard him say stuff like that." Where and when? Tarantino never met Bruce... Bruce died in 72. Tarantino would have been what, six or seven?  Most people in the martial arts community see the Bruce Lee portrayal as funny or entertaining, but ultimately as Bullshit. In fact, the stuff Bruce was saying in the movie sounded to me like the stuff I hear modern MMA fighters say and not something that would have come out of the Dragon's mouth. Either way, Tarantino has every right to stick to his guns... it will just cost his movie a couple of 100 million 

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

I've probably read all of the same biographies you have and more and they all said the same thing. He was confident in himself but was never arrogant or disrespectful and the Muhammad Ali thing simply wouldn't have happened. Not only did Lee admire and respect Ali and Boxing, he incorporated and lot of boxing into his style of Jeet Kune Do specifically its footwork. Every martial artist and and celebrity who talks about Bruce talks about how genuine a person he was. THAT is not up for debate. 

 

I laughed at the scene when I saw it in the movie too because I knew what inspired some of it... "Judo" Gene Lebel has told a story like this a couple of times, he was a world class Judoka and was Rhonda Roussey's teacher. He introduced grappling to Bruce and impressed Bruce when he got him in a hold Bruce couldn't get out of... except by biting him. I took this incident as the inspiration for the Brad Pitt scene in OUATIH but I could be wrong... Bruce learned just as much from other martial artists as they did from him because he didn't believe in "styles."  Chuck Norris showed Bruce that high kicks could be used effectively in actual fights, something that Bruce disagreed with because he was trained in Wing Chun which has very few kicks that target above the waist.

 

My point in all of this is that Tarantino's portrayal of Bruce was WAAAAY off and that's fine because it was a fictional story... but he should have just said that instead of trying to justify his depiction of Bruce by saying "he's heard him say stuff like that." Where and when? Tarantino never met Bruce... Bruce died in 72. Tarantino would have been what, six or seven?  Most people in the martial arts community see the Bruce Lee portrayal as funny or entertaining, but ultimately as Bullshit. In fact, the stuff Bruce was saying in the movie sounded to me like the stuff I hear modern MMA fighters say and not something that would have come out of the Dragon's mouth. Either way, Tarantino has every right to stick to his guns... it will just cost his movie a couple of 100 million 

 

I wouldn't say it's bullshit, I'd say it was an exaggeration and that means there's a core of truth to the portrayal. I think it was clearly an exaggeration so I see less problem with the portrayal. My understanding of Tarantino's defense was of that, that there was a core of truth to the portrayal, not that his actual portrayal is 100% biographical (it's a primarily fictional film, after all). Maybe I read him wrong, but that's how I took it. Still torn on the scene, but still enjoy it.  

[johnny]

I’m imagining you two reading like 8 different Bruce lee biographies 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, johnny said:

I’m imagining you two reading like 8 different Bruce lee biographies 

Oh I've read more than that for sure... I've been a Bruce Lee fan since I first saw Return of the Dragon (Also known as Way of the Dragon) when I was five.

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I wouldn't say it's bullshit, I'd say it was an exaggeration and that means there's a core of truth to the portrayal. I think it was clearly an exaggeration so I see less problem with the portrayal. My understanding of Tarantino's defense was of that, that there was a core of truth to the portrayal, not that his actual portrayal is 100% biographical (it's a primarily fictional film, after all). Maybe I read him wrong, but that's how I took it. Still torn on the scene, but still enjoy it.  

 

Not sure there's a lot of room for misinterpretation when Q is saying things like this...

 

Quote

Tarantino has defended his depiction of the “Enter the Dragon” actor, telling reporters at a Moscow press conference, “Bruce Lee was kind of an arrogant guy. The way he was talking, I didn’t just make a lot of that up.”

 

and doubling down despite getting his facts wrong

https://slate.com/culture/2019/10/china-delay-tarantino-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-over-bruce-lee.html

Quote

Tarantino and Shannon Lee have been trading barbs publicly since before the film’s release, with the director making things worse at a Moscow press junket by erroneously asserting that he’d based the scene on comments made in the memoirs of her mother, Linda Lee Cadwell. (The statement Tarantino attributed to Cadwell about her husband bragging he could outfight Muhammad Ali was, in fact, made about him by third parties.)

 

So take that for what it's worth 

 

[fuckle85]

 

[SaysWho?]

Four more minutes of Margot with her feet up.

[sexy_shapiro]

A country censoring a movie is significantly more important to me than whether the portrayal of Bruce Lee was accurate or not.