Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But as powerful as film is, it cannot rewrite the actual events of history.
It can reveal the untold stories, uncover hidden truths, and clarify the context of history by looking at it in different ways, including from previously marginalized, non-Classic-Hollywood-hero viewpoints.
Or it can wallow in nostalgia so completely that the significance of actual events becomes less important than the brief flicker of memory sparked by the sight of a few Hopalong Cassidy coffee mugs or Damian Lewis pretending to be Steve McQueen (why?) or the pleasure of watching two handsome guys banter their way through yet another buddy movie.
This sums it up for me, but then, I don't generally like it when history is altered significantly in a film. Or for instance "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas" - it's a completely fictional movie, and VERY emotionally manipulative and sappy - as if there aren't enough truly legit stories that came out of concentration camps during WW2. And so many people thought it was a true story. Nope.
I saw no need or advantage to rewriting history in this movie either. Yes, I enjoyed the soundtrack, and the walk down memory lane (though I was very young I do recall 1969), and I always enjoy watching Brad Pitt and Leonardo diCaprio, but I really felt like this was too maudlin, choppy, and even boring at times.
Which is really saying something because after all, this IS a Quentin Tarantino movie and my gosh, look at the cast! (Not to mention, the budget.)
Help me out with this: How many years had passed between the introduction of Leonardo’s character to 1969? His character seemed to have aged a lot! He was heavier, more wrinkled, etc. was it due to hard living or had a lot of years passed?
I don't even know - maybe mid fifties to 1969, so maybe 15 years of hard living?
I didn't find a minute of it boring. Loved it. Funny and a little sad. Almost heartfelt--by Tarantino standards. It's more a movie about middle age and seeing the next generation replacing you than it's about a bloodbath or Manson or hippies or even Hollywood per se.
Probably Tarantino's best since at least Inglorious Basterds.
I agree, although I really liked Django Unchained also. 4/5/5 for me.
I saw it today and came away feeling that it's the best movie I've seen in ages, and certainly my favorite Tarantino movie. It works on many levels and in many ways. The re-writing of history not only makes total sense but is a beautiful artistic choice. Tarantino's career has been heavy on style, but not always heavy on substance. This movie might be his most intelligent work.
I looked at the movie like it was a dream. I frequently have dreams that end up replaying my life's unflattering setbacks, and those events are changed in ways that benefit me. It seems that Tarantino has strong feelings about the greater implications the Manson murders had for the industry, and you see that in the portrayal of the perpetrators and the victims. The movie didn't really excuse the old ways of the industry either, but it in this dream-like parallel timeline, the actors and old Hollywood were allowed to fade into irrelevance, instead of leaving a void in everyone's lives.
It was a little long but otherwise, I really enjoyed it. I love it when Leo plays funny. He was definitely funny in this movie. Brad Pitt was fantastic as well. Maybe this one will finally give Brad his Oscar.
Austin Butler as Tex was fantastic as well and I enjoyed the brief appearance of Luke Perry, mostly just because it was Luke and I love him so. =)
I really enjoyed the film. As far as the Manson stuff its a movie, not a documentary on the Manson clan. It was Tarantino doing what he does best. Very entertaining! I felt I got my 9 bucks worth too!
I really enjoyed it as well. Yes there were some scenes that would have been better off on the cutting room floor but for the most part, it was well done. Wow, was NOT expecting that ending LOL.
There seem to be two general sorts of movie-goers:
Those concerned with what happens. For them, plot is paramount. They view a film as linear, leading from a beginning to a big payoff/resolution at the end. They view the job of the film to lead from that beginning to that summation. All content is subservient to that end.
Those concern with how things happen. For them, plot is not that important. They care less about the tale and more about the experience. These folks don't mind ambiguous endings, MacGuffins, or story structures that don't adhere to the formula laid out in books like THE SCREENWRITER'S BIBLE.
Tarantino generally makes films that fall into the latter group. He is interested in dialogue. Think of the apartment scene(s) in Pulp Fiction. Jules's commentary on the Big Kahuna burger, his biblical quotations. These could easily be cut from the film as far as the plot goes. But Pulp Fiction's raison d'etre isn't what happens but how it happens.
Tarantino didn't attend film school. He didn't learn how to 'properly' structure a film. He watched a ton of movies, and developed his own style forthwith. The title of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood intentionally harkens to one of his most significant cinematic influences, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West (and, to an extent, Leone's last film, Once Upon a Time in America). Both are massive works. They clock in at 165 minutes and 229 minutes (the un-truncated original release). They are very meditative films. They have plots, but they are about how things happen. Both are considered masterpieces - OUATITW is invariably mentioned in 'greatest westerns ever' conversations.
No one should be surprised by Once Upon a Time in the West. Tarantino has been doing his thing for more than a quarter century. He is what he is and, if you've been paying any attention at all, you know what you're getting stylistically when you go to one of his films.
There seem to be two general sorts of movie-goers:
Those concerned with what happens. For them, plot is paramount. They view a film as linear, leading from a beginning to a big payoff/resolution at the end. They view the job of the film to lead from that beginning to that summation. All content is subservient to that end.
Those concern with how things happen. For them, plot is not that important. They care less about the tale and more about the experience. These folks don't mind ambiguous endings, MacGuffins, or story structures that don't adhere to the formula laid out in books like THE SCREENWRITER'S BIBLE.
Tarantino generally makes films that fall into the latter group. He is interested in dialogue. Think of the apartment scene(s) in Pulp Fiction. Jules's commentary on the Big Kahuna burger, his biblical quotations. These could easily be cut from the film as far as the plot goes. But Pulp Fiction's raison d'etre isn't what happens but how it happens.
Tarantino didn't attend film school. He didn't learn how to 'properly' structure a film. He watched a ton of movies, and developed his own style forthwith. The title of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood intentionally harkens to one of his most significant cinematic influences, Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West (and, to an extent, Leone's last film, Once Upon a Time in America). Both are massive works. They clock in at 165 minutes and 229 minutes (the un-truncated original release). They are very meditative films. They have plots, but they are about how things happen. Both are considered masterpieces - OUATITW is invariably mentioned in 'greatest westerns ever' conversations.
No one should be surprised by Once Upon a Time in the West. Tarantino has been doing his thing for more than a quarter century. He is what he is and, if you've been paying any attention at all, you know what you're getting stylistically when you go to one of his films.
Just for the record, I ADORE Pulp Fiction. It is one of my all time favorite movies - it may in fact be my favorite movie of all time. I did not consider Once Upon A Time In Hollywood to be at all on that level.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
