Off to see it shortly. DO NOT read Rex Reed's review. Without warning, he flat-out spoils the ending. F**ker.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a film jam-packed with greatness but, alas, one that's ultimately a little unfulfilling. Leonardo DiCaprio is terrific as Rick Dalton, a TV star facing the decline of his career, and so is Brad Pitt as his stunt double and wingman, Cliff Booth. Everyone should be so lucky as to have a friend like Cliff. The story focuses on the two leads, but it intersects the real-life story of the Manson Family murders, bringing real-life actress (and murder victim) Sharon Tate (the very lovely Margot Robbie) in as a character. Like Tarantino's earlier Inglourious Basterds, the film takes HUGE liberties with actual history and also may be another example of Tarantino poking fun at the audience by getting them to cheer extreme violence when the right people are on the receiving end. The film does a superb job portraying 1969 Los Angeles without overdoing it. Lots of cameos in this one (Damian Lewis looks spot-on as Steve McQueen). The film is a overlong in Tarantino's usual self-indulgent way, but it all either creates mood or establishes character. I'm going to recommend it even if the whole is less than the sum of its parts. 7.0/10.
Even if you missed that in the film's promotion, it's not really a spoiler, since the film diverges greatly from actual history.
The guy who was Dewey Crowe on Justified. However... On a related note, the star of Justified, Timothy Olyphant, has a pretty big role.
I remember a TV movie about the Manson Murders. I should have known this wouldn’t be accurate. Oh well, I’ll still see it. Now bring on the Star Trek movie.
As the characters played by DiCaprio and Pitt are fictional, all their interactions with real-life characters are, of course, fictional. I wouldn't say the film is inaccurate so much as it's...
I’ve been watching “The Movies” on CNN and they were talking about the recent Tarantino movies where he makes the “losers” of history the heroes like in D”jango where he gets revenge on the slave owner. I thought that was an interesting take. I’m not sure that’s entirely the point, but it works. You really don’t need to think too deeply about Tarantino movies, just enjoy them for what they are.
A few other things... The late Luke Perry has a great scene...and I TOTALLY did not recognize him. I googled his character and was astonished. "THAT was Luke Perry?!?" Wow! A scene with the Sharon Tate character takes place in Westwood Village. She walks by the iconic theater (shown in the poster below)... ...and I got a major case of deja vu as two weeks ago (my last night in L.A.!) I was exactly where she walks.
I never watched 90210 and never cared for that type of show, buuuut I’ve always liked Luke Perry in the few roles I saw him in. Most notably in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Tombstone. I’m surprised his career didn’t take off, IMO, he’s an underrated actor. Too bad we won’t see him in anything else.
Another surprise. Real-life actor and director Sam Wanamaker is a character in the film. He's played by Nicholas Hammond. You know, this guy...
The climax of this film--the moment when everyone cheers/claps--is a cool moment but the actions of the protagonist are utterly indefensible, both legally and morally. Don't get me wrong. I smiled and clapped. But it was wrong.
Saw it today and it was certainly an orgy of late 60's/early 70's nostalgia, but goddamn was this a movie without a plot until the last 10 minutes! Oh, and if the cameraman had lingered on Margaret Qualley's ass for any more shots than he already did, I would have passed out from blood loss to my brainpan.
Totally didn't realize she's Andie MacDowell's daughter. So, she's got dark-haired beauty in her pedigree. And Maya Hawke--who plays Linda Kasabian(?)--is instantly recognizable Uma Thurman's daughter. .
Fan fucking tastic! I don’t know what movie @Paladin saw, but I freaking loved this movie. I didn’t realize he was going all Inglorious Bastards at the end, but he did and I loved it. The whole movie I was like, “where’s all of the killing and gore?” Then he brought it and brought it good. DiCaprio chewed the scenery and must have had a blast with this. Brad Pitt was awesome. Margot Robbie’s face acting was fantastic, who cares if she didn’t have a whole lot of lines? I really, really, really loved this movie. It might just top Kill Bill vol. 2 for me. I’m so glad I saw this in theaters.
One really good point they make is this: if you don't know the history about Sharon Tate's murder, the character of Sharon Tate in the movie is actually pointless. She exists in the movie only for NOTHING to happen to her in the end, and if you don't know what happened to the real person, the character doesn't serve a purpose.
Tarantino definitely still has a foot fetish. I mean... she had a gun. He used what he had available.
It's not clear she had any bullets left (she certainly didn't use the ones she fired in a productive way) and he retreated and came back with the, er, weapon. Like I said, I enjoyed it, but in the real world that would probably be murder. And while we the audience have the luxury of knowing what a monster Susan Atkins was in real life, in the world of the film the only thing she's really guilty of is assault and breaking and entering.
Bruce Lee's daughter is apparently not pleased with Tarantino over the scene where Cliff fought her Dad (and actually gave him a challenge).
In the scene with Schwars (Al Pacino) and Dalton, Schwarz explains an old Hollywood trick: take a former great and cast him as the villain on an episode of a TV series, so that the series' hero is made to look greater by beating someone so recognizable. This is exactly what's done with Bruce Lee: Cliff (Pitt) is made to look more formidable--something needed to achieve tension in the Spahn Ranch scene and to be believable in the finale--by holding his own with Bruce Lee. The difference, of course, is that Lee was a rising star in 1969. But that's okay, because we the audience accept him as a genuine bad-ass.
Finally saw this. Huge meh. Excellent job of world-building (it really felt like the late 1960s) and great acting from Pitt and DiCaprio. But it's way too long and meandering. Plus, factual inaccuracies (like 747s in use at least a year before they actually were) take me right out of any movie. If the story was tighter and better told it'd be easier to forgive, but it's just too self-indulgent on Tarantino's part.
Nah. See what Paladin wrote above: Not to mention, the entire scene is a daydream/unreliable memory of Cliffs, during which the viewer sees and hears a conversation that Cliff couldn't have possibly have heard at the time. It's not meant to be taken as fact.
