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.
It was pretty good especially compared to the total crappola that was shown in the previews of what was about to stink up theaters. There was no need for Pulp Fiction part 2 or Reservoir Dog part 3. It was time for QT to move on to a new direction. They cut out an hour of material to hold it down to 2 hours and 45 minutes. I saw it the night it was released and in retrospect like it more now than when I walked out of the theater. I also saw Yesterday and Late Night a while back OUATIH is much more worthy of plunking down $10 than either one of those cute campy little films. (and the music in Yesterday was obviously great)
Believe me, I don't either. That's not why I didn't love it. I didn't love it because I felt like the script and story line dragged.
For the record, I went to the matinee and it was in a smallish theater that has recently been renovated, so oddly enough a whole lot of us were laughing and talking beforehand even though we didn't know each other. Afterwards we talked about it too and not a single person (out of about 40) said they thought it was great. Like me, they said it had some strong points, and it was well cast, but EVERYONE there who was commenting on it felt like it dragged and that it was sort of choppy - just not a particularly strong plot or script.
But we did all agree that the soundtrack, casting, and photography were all really good.
Don't get me wrong - I don't regret seeing it. I just have seen better, and seen better from Quentin Tarantino, as well as Brad Pitt and Leonardo deCaprio. Hindsight being 20/20 I would have waited till it came out on a streaming channel, and made my own popcorn.
Kathryn, I think this is a movie that will get better if you see it again. I loved every minute of it, but I can see how some would be bored. I just was in awe of Leonardo DiCaprio’s acting skills, and I loved Brad Pitt’s character. Margot Robbie blew me away too. She didn’t have a lot of lines, but she was the heart of the movie. I just loved watching the scenery, the cars, the clothes, the period, and the dialogue. I didn’t feel like I was in the theater for three hours either. I kept thinking about it afterwards too.
I deliberately ignored all the critics and reviews of the movie before seeing it so it wouldn’t be spoiled, but now after seeing so much about it I want to see it again. To me this was my second favorite Tarantino flick (nothing can top Pulp Fiction if just for the experience I had seeing it in the theatre back in ‘94 and being blown away by this crazy new director that I’d never heard of at that time).
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 think a lot of years had passed. They mentioned at some point that the show Bounty Law aired in the ‘50s, so I’m assuming at least ten years and a lot of alcohol and cigarettes later is when this movie takes place.
Kathryn, I think this is a movie that will get better if you see it again. I loved every minute of it, but I can see how some would be bored. I just was in awe of Leonardo DiCaprio’s acting skills, and I loved Brad Pitt’s character. Margot Robbie blew me away too. She didn’t have a lot of lines, but she was the heart of the movie. I just loved watching the scenery, the cars, the clothes, the period, and the dialogue. I didn’t feel like I was in the theater for three hours either. I kept thinking about it afterwards too.
I deliberately ignored all the critics and reviews of the movie before seeing it so it wouldn’t be spoiled, but now after seeing so much about it I want to see it again. To me this was my second favorite Tarantino flick (nothing can top Pulp Fiction if just for the experience I had seeing it in the theatre back in ‘94 and being blown away by this crazy new director that I’d never heard of at that time).
Pulp Fiction may be my very favorite movie of all time! And I like a lot of different types of movies.
Thank you for sharing your take on it. However, unless my husband and I watch it together (he was gone), I doubt I'll watch it again. I enjoyed some aspects of the film a lot - for instance, the characters were very well cast, the music, the feel of that era, etc. but I really didn't think the story line or script was all that great.
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.
Very well put. Even Pulp Fiction confused a lot of people. I was in college at the time and I remember seeing it in the theater and I felt like I was practically the only one laughing. People didn't know what they were seeing. They probably thought they were seeing a gangster flick, not a comedy. But Tarantino movies always defy any strict comedy/drama categorization. Also at the time I think a lot of people were upset by the jumbled timeline. They just wanted a clear plot!
The other weird thing about Tarantino is that for all the violence in his movies, his movies are the opposite of tragedies. In many ways, he gleefully succumbs to wishful thinking. Justice is always served in the end: Uma Thurman DOES Kill Bill and even the scales. Hitler does die--but in a more spectacular and morally satisfying way than he died in real life. And SPOILER: Sharon Tate gets to live! Because in Tarantino's moral universe good, pure sweet innocent girls like her aren't senselessly murdered like she was in real life. In that sense, his movies are every bit the escapist entertainment as the Marvel Universe or Star Wars or Spielberg's classic movies. (And I don't mean that as an insult). He's not Coppola or Scorsese or Kubrick where evil often triumphs over good. Life, in his hands, is a fun, violent party.
Pulp Fiction may be my very favorite movie of all time! And I like a lot of different types of movies.
Thank you for sharing your take on it. However, unless my husband and I watch it together (he was gone), I doubt I'll watch it again. I enjoyed some aspects of the film a lot - for instance, the characters were very well cast, the music, the feel of that era, etc. but I really didn't think the story line or script was all that great.
Oh, I was just saying eventually when it comes out on cable or streaming, not to go to the movie again at the theatre. But I understand. I do think this will be one of those films that get better after watching again. I’m glad you liked some aspects of the film. Taste is always subjective. My daughter didn’t enjoy it at all, but I think she didn’t know much about the era and she was disappointed that it wasn’t really about the Manson Family. The problem is the studio advertised it that way and people went in expecting something else.
Oh, I was just saying eventually when it comes out on cable or streaming, not to go to the movie again at the theatre. But I understand. I do think this will be one of those films that get better after watching again. I’m glad you liked some aspects of the film. Taste is always subjective. My daughter didn’t enjoy it at all, but I think she didn’t know much about the era and she was disappointed that it wasn’t really about the Manson Family. The problem is the studio advertised it that way and people went in expecting something else.
Speaking of the Manson family though, one of the other things I liked about the movie was the portrayal of those individuals, the Spahn Farm (or however it's spelled), the culture, etc. I thought that was well done.
Quentin Tarantino defended it because he remembers Bruce Lee saying some arrogant things. His wife also did write about it, even if to quote a writer who said it. Why would that writer’s quote be in her book unless she was implying that Lee could beat up Ali?
Would people be this mad if Cassius Clay was shown claiming he was the greatest of all time? Isn’t it a little racist to assume Bruce Lee never said something like that? I’m sure he was like every competitive fighter I’ve ever seen and talked a lot of smack. They all do it, and most of them don’t win every fight either. Even Cassius/Mohammad.
The scene was a set up scene to show what a badass Tarantino’s fictional character stuntman/former green beret combat veteran was. It could actually be taken as a compliment that they used Lee as such a badass fighter that it would make Cliff seem even more of a badass for having beat him.
Last edited by katygirl68; 08-17-2019 at 02:11 PM..
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.
