Once Upon A Time In Hollywood

After hearing that the ludicrous Vanilla Fudge cover of "You Keep Me Hanging On" features in this film, I was reminded of this utterly brilliant post

MUSIC: the official thread.

 

I forgot about that! Class post.

 

Esmeralda

I slay me

 

Maya Hawke, who looks like the love child of Ethan Hawke & Uma Thurman, let it all hang out in this movie's premiere.


wait...she IS the child of Ethan & Uma!

 

Loved this, one of king dork's very best. In fact im gonna say its my personal fave - many z. 5 star

 

What did you think to the ending?

 

I think it was one hour way too long. Not among Tarantino's best. 6/10

 

1hr 40 mins is too short

What would need editing out?

 

It went too long on recreating actual 'tv episodes' filming. That should have been done either briefly or only as a reference like the Italian spaghetti westerns sequence was done. Too much time of Sharon Tate strutting, looking at movie posters, entering the movie theater, watching scenes from 'The Wrecking Crew', etc. That whole sequence was unnecessary and more so if at the end she didn't become the target. Also the Brad Pitt character was two dimensional, wasn't fleshed out properly, we barely knew him except that he was a bad-ass stuntman.

 

I thought that was obviously done for a reason, as the guy was in no way believable even in the context of the movie's world. He was the main character's Super Ego portrayal more than an individual character.

All in all, not Tarantino's best work but very good nevertheless. 8/10

 

It's pretty entertaining but ever since Jackie Brown Tarantino has been too self indulgent with respect to meticulous recreation of period features and pastiche diversions, he's like a b-movie wes Anderson, and it just adds flab to the movie, he needs a more ruthless editor. Plus he seems to have used up his most memorable dialogue in his first two films.

 

Yeah this one is on Jackie Brown level in my eyes: it had some moments of brilliance, but dragged for too long to get to its climax.

 

This just shows how fuckin clueless you really are, child-molester.

It's one of the most important/poignant parts of the movie.


Seriously, I know your wife & family despise and hate you as a 'human', but just do them and us a huge favour:
K.I.L.L Y.O.U.R.S.E.L.F



(shut up, Anthony, you paedo-protecting HOMO)

 

I enjoyed it. Maybe not the master piece that others say it is, but it was entertaining. Pitt and Dicaprio shine here.

 

Listen, human excrement, that sequence was totally POINTLESS. Particularly to the new generation of moviegoers that had not even a slight clue who Sharon Tate was or anything about the Manson murders. So to the majority of moviegoers all those scenes were like "Okay, what is this about?'. The ending renders it completely unnecessary.

 

The back story to the whole movie is the Tate/Manson Murders, cretin.

So, these new movie-goers (because even if your post was accurate or even warranted merit), like you they're IQ-thick and...deserve...to....DIE!

 

So what are you saying is that moviegoers are supposed to do a history research before watching a fucking popcorn flick? GTFOH!!

 

Thick Modern Movie-Goer #1: "Duuurrr...there's a new movie...duurrrr...coming out this week...uurrrr"

Thick Modern Movie-Goer #2: "Errrrr...durrrr...what's it about?"

Thick Modern Movie-Goer #1: "Durrrr...no idea"

Thick Modern Movie-Goer #2: "Huurr....let's just pay and go anyway without reading anyrhing...duurrrrr....about the story or eerrrr....anything"


Thick Modern Movie-Goer #1 & 2 (after movie): "Uurrrr...fuck? What was that?? Urrrr...a popcorn movie? Duurrrr...hated it."


God, not only are you an old, soon-to-be-dead peadophile who spies on daughter in the shower/bedroom of your own home, you're also fuckin dumb.

 

People goes to the movies based mostly on the trailers. The trailer for this movie barely hints at the Manson murders, you fucking excrement. People went to watch this film because (a) looks fun (b) has Leo & Pitt together (c) is a Tarantino film. Only old timers like you and me knew it had the Sharon Tate angle tossed there which made it more appealing to us. The rest of the crowd was clueless.

 

See also, Inglorious Basterds.

 

What about it?

 

It's a revionist war movie in the same way 'Hollywood' can be seen as a 'revisionist' 60s drama.

People don't need to know that Sharon Tate & Friends don't get stabbed to death the same way they don't need to know Adolf Hitler & Goebells die.

So, you're wrong, your rating/review is wrong and it's not a popcorn-movie (those are what you like - CGI/Superhero flicks for retards)

 

Wrong on all accounts.
DIE!!!

 

No. You are wrong this time!!

How many people go changing into see a movie without knowing the most basic aspects of a plot or, with movies about histórical moments or events, look up online first??

That's just human curiosity...if people were or had done what you said, this movie would've been a failure, artistically and commercially.

 

I can see both of your points on this one. Although I didn’t like it, I didn’t really have a problem with the Tate girl walking around looking at movie posters and us getting as much depth of her character as we got of Pitt’s.

Tate is a character who served no actual purpose in the film and whose only real purpose of being in said film occurred in some alternate universe where she gets gutted like a pig. However, without that alternate universe this film wouldn’t exist, so to try to tell this story without insight into who Tate was would feel incomplete. It would only work for the idiots who have no idea of the event the film is based on and although it would flow better, it would do the film a disservice.

 

Unsurprisingly, Tarantino has a long shot showing Margot Robbie’s bare feet, before another scene featuring another girl’s bare feet.

 

I’d bet anything Tarintino has some creepy female fetishes and he’s one of those guys like Cosby or Weinstein and the only difference is he either never acted on his impulses or he just hasn’t been outed yet. Anytime as a director you feel the need to actually choke your actress rather than have someone else do it or have her act out she’s choking says to me you really like choking women, if not people in general.

 

What gave it away? Her last name?

 

Pulp Fiction has two whole scenes where the characters talk about Uma's character getting a foot massage. Jackie Brown had an almost close-up of Brigitte Fonda's bare feet. Tarantino is definitely into foot fetish as he himself sucked Salma Hayek's toe's in 'From Dawn Til Dusk'.

 

Exactly and how creepy and immoral is it to write in a scene where he gets to suck on an actresses toes because he has a foot fetish?