I saw the movie ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD twice. Like in all things in this world, I feel the word "amazing" should be used sparingly.
I felt the music was AMAZING. One of the greatest soundtracks of the year. Just awesome, playable on its own, fantastic.
I felt the production design, recreating the era was AMAZING. One day during the shoot I made a bad turn and ended up in the parking lot base camp. I felt like I was there, on Hollywood Boulevard 1969. I got my ass out of there rather than trip out. But it was cool.
I felt that Brad Pitt was AMAZING. Funny. Cool. He has always been a great actor but man was he a blast in this film. Funny. Tough. Wry. Hell, even hot.
I did not like the film overall- there's two reasons.
FIRST- and thankfully easiest, "what is the story of the film overall?". I would say- "Flailing and failing actor in 1969 worries about his career going down the shitter and shares with his stunt double."
LAME. BORING. WHO THE F CARES????
But this isn't Slashfilm, this is the last remaining TLB Blog not run by the mentally deficient.
What we want to do is examine the Manson stuff in the film, and by extension some of the Tate stuff too.
Perhaps we can try to categorize scenes
1- Spahn Ranch- very key sequence for TLB folks
2- Stray Manson shits
3- Assault on Cielo Drive
4- Sharon Mains (Theatre, Final Montage)
1- The production department did a great job in this scene. With the notable exception of Spahn's house it feels like the Ranch- they went to Corriganville and looked at the photos and made it look amazing. Horse rides. Check. Tex leading in Charlie's absence? Sure why not. Gypsy was a babe, Dunham anything but, but sure let's take it. Their attempt to put BOBBY in the background in a top hat looking like a mental patient when he was considered extremely beautiful was bizarre. Using real names of some people versus made up names (Sundance ffs?) makes no sense- it was not for legal reasons, Gypsy is still alive. But the sequence is strange and pointless.
There is this dramatic buildup with Squeaky (and her feet!) that establishes....ummm nothing.
Cliff forces himself into see George who he barely knows and....ummmm nothing.
Cliff promises to come check on George- and he never does
Cliff beats the living fuck out of Clem and makes him change the tire- this establishes that Cliff is prone to violence (setting up the end), but the Bruce Lee sequence shows that just as well.
Picking up the hippie chick is a great scene and of course she would love to get him to join the Clan- but she doesn't really try and flips on him too easily.
But you know what rings like holy empty bullshit? All the Family gathering outside the house to have a showdown with Cliff. Which never happens/ And never happened. There was never a show of force. And where did this "you cannot see George" bullshit come from?
It is a fun scene, it is a pretty scene, but it is Tarantino's attempt to make the Family scary and intimidating long before any murders happened and it doesn't ring true. Squeaky called the shots? Rats in traps out of PSYCHO?
Literally the only purpose I can see in this sequence, which is long, is to have Tex meet Cliff and have Cliff mock him before the later home invasion.
2- Charlie shows up in the Twinkie Truck looking for Terry. This scene, the only for the poor actor playing Charlie, is just so people can go "Oh look, Manson." It is fine and mercifully brief. Andie MacDowell's daughter on the street corner is suitably cute and sexy and nuts. There is almost nothing else in the movie about Manson before the Assault.
3- Assault on Cielo Drive- Five people, real living people including an 8.5 month pregnant woman were slaughtered by drugged out hippie idiots on Cielo Drive on that date in 1969. It wasn't funny. It was chaos- ropes, bullets, gun butts, knives, blood, death. Real people died.
I could maybe see if you wanted to do a fairy tale where the five people lived and you taught me all about them so I cared. But Steve Parent doesn't even exist in this QT world. Voytek and Abby are nothing. Less than nothing. Only Sharon has any real (minimal screen time). "Saving" these characters (which isn't even what really happen) has no depth whatsoever.
Also, as scholars what jumped out at all of us? Charlie didn't send Tex and Sadie and Patty and Uma Thurman's boring daughter to just kill some rando straights in Bel Air. He sent them to kill everyone at Melcher's house (or something). It was designated, it was targeted, it was purposeful. To this day we debate what the purpose was but it could NOT have been any other house that night. So the convoluted conversation in the car quoting Hendrickson's film about the love of violence where they decide fuck it let's kill that Western actor- it is nonsense.
For Tarantino's plot to work they have to switch houses. Rick doesn't save Sharon in HER house. Rick and Cliff do not save her at all. In this reality they never know she was even the target. They are scarcely even heroic- they save themselves from a drugged out hippie home invasion. Yes this is good but it is not heroism.
I cannot address the violent deaths of Katie, Tex and Sadie because they are absurd and come out of fucking no where. I did laugh at the "I am the devil" exchange, but Voytek waking up to this terrified and Cliff tripping on an lsd cigarette ( no such thing btw) are way different.
Hell everything about the assault is movie nonsense. Uma Jr runs away with the car and they shrug? Sure. Superhuman dog with snapping jaws. Sure why not. Working, filled flame thrower just a few steps away?
And what is the result? Two dead girls that we know NOTHING about. One dead Tex who we saw for 2 minutes previously- this is all so Tarantino can make them cutouts we don't give a shit about. Go ahead toast them, they mean nothing. They were stupid enough to switch houses!
REAL PEOPLE DIED THAT DAY. They were not "saved" because the killers went next door.
And anyway, the real life death of Susan Atkins, death by 1000 papercuts, was more deserved that an instant shish kabob anyway.
4- Sharon at the Westwood theatre and in the Westwood Theatre and the Final Montage-
The whole Westwood theatre sequence is sweet (even the dirty feet). The real Sharon doesn't seem all that innocent or "good" as Tarantino calls her. She partied with the rest of them (look at PLAYBOY AFTER DARK sequence). It does make her seem like a ditz. It does give her some dimension. She is still not a real character but it is a sweet sequence.
I was less pleased by the pre-Assault montage. Pregnancy melancholia? What the actual fuck is that? Why go to El Coyote and then use a different table?
I don't know- QT saves Sharon but it doesn't feel like a real person.
-------
The film just got a boatload of noms and will win for Cliff and script 100%. The four hour cut, coming in a year or so will be fascinating. Ultimately though a mediocre actor stops some hippies who might have killed a cipher. That's the story and it is a pretty weak one, when most of us know so many much more interesting details.
NEXT: The Col Present: THE LAST WORD on DEBRA TATE
50 comments:
This movie was a terrible disappointment, despite the awesome soundtrack and impressive recreations of spahn ranch and 1969-era downtown los angeles. I knew before seeing the film, however, that we sure were NOT going to get any kind of in-depth expose of manson detailing his myriad connections to the film or music industry. No way. Too many producers, actors, film executives and musicians are still alive who knew manson and tarantino wasn't going to put his career at risk by exposing this fact. Maybe the forthcoming "director's cut" will actually show some of the kind of stuff I just mentioned, but I'm more inclined to believe it will more likely just feature more extended shots of margot robbie's feet (not that I would be opposed to that!). Hopefully someday, though it almost certainly won't happen (if it does happen) until 2030 or afterward when all of the relevant parties are dead and can't sue, we will finally have a true, complete account of manson's dealings with hollywood.
"LAME. BORING. WHO THE F CARES????"
Finally, something I can agree on with the Colonel.
Squeaky wouldn't let him see George because it was George's nap time so he could stay up and watch tv with her later, there by establishing their intimate relationship. That part made sense.
Over all a very shallow movie.
But that's Hollywood for ya.
Have you seen any deleted scenes? Charlie had a long one where he tries to get management and looks pathetic.
The actor gets to reprise his role to great effect on Mindhunter.
The movie definitely plays to QT's strengths and weaknesses. Cool, glib, fun and shallow.
For the violence at the ranch he should have had some bikers a la Satan's Slaves or Straights as that would have been about accurate in the time line. I didn't like the ominous foreboding family either. No nuance and not accurate. Ruby said they were the nicest people
SixtiesRockRules! said...
Hopefully someday, though it almost certainly won't happen (if it does happen) until 2030 or afterward when all of the relevant parties are dead and can't sue, we will finally have a true, complete account of manson's dealings with hollywood
From who ? They'll probably be dead too !
Vera Dreiser said...
But oh those Transformers movies are just perfect
They don't make a pretence at re~writing real history in which real people died and many more real people suffered for years after, if they ever recovered.
One doesn't need to have made a perfect film in order to have an opinion of one that isn't or to point out its flaws.
Grimtraveller said...
"From who? They'll probably be dead too!"
My best guess would be that the author, whoever he or she turns out to be, will have been able to interview a number of people who were friends and associates of various film & music industry celebs who were acquainted with manson. Yes, this means most of the book's contents will consist of second or third-hand info, but that will likely be the best we can hope for by then, unless some of the first-hand witnesses would be willing to offer up "deathbed confessions"(unlikely, I know). At any rate, in another ten or twenty years, I sincerely hope somebody will be able to write and publish a much more thorough and comprehensive manson bio (including newly-discovered details regarding charlie's dealings with the film & music biz) than that terrible rehash put out by jeff guinn a few years ago.
ATT noted Homophobe and Debra Tate Asslicker Vera Drieser: Sick Burn. Hey by the way can I see a link to any news coverage of Debra's alleged mail bombing? I need it for the next article . Thanks Vera!
SixtiesRockRules! said...
At any rate, in another ten or twenty years, I sincerely hope somebody will be able to write and publish a much more thorough and comprehensive manson bio (including newly-discovered details regarding charlie's dealings with the film & music biz)
A person can hope, I guess.
I wouldn't be holding my breath however.
There again, in 20 years, I might not have much breath left, or any at all !
If I've learned one thing from following this case since 1978, it's that it has attracted some people, famous and otherwise, who seem to have serious issues with a minor detail called "the truth." Personally, I think the whole "Manson in Hollywood" thing has been severely overblown, rather like creepy crawling, dog sacrifices and "desert murders that no one will ever solve."
COL, thank you for mentioning the omission of Steven Parent. No other reviewer has done so.
How many of you think the “real reason” was that Dennis Wilson knew the “true story” and carried guilt? He felt that he changed Manson’s words and didn’t pay him because he had already given so much up front? I think that’s it. Then, the whole Helter Skelter that everyone corroborated.
Ok, so the Hollywood scene may have crossed paths with some drugs and kinky sex? I’m not so sure about any new revelations at this point. It has interested me since I was a child because I thought Sharon was so striking and disliked “hippies” growing up in Canada. Maybe that’s just it?
Once I realized what the movie was actually about I liked it. I thought it would be more about the Mansonistas, but it wasn't. It's 90% a buddy movie and 10% a revenge fantasy. I look forward to the four-hour Netflix recut, if it happens. As a period piece showing 1969, it was great. I had hoped there would be more on the Ranch, but whatever. I though George's house would have been cleaner in the spring of '69, but what do I know. -Chris Till
Steven Parent wasn't mentioned and neither were the Labianca's because in the movie no one was murdered except for the killers themselves. The movie is good overall but could have been better.
There was no reason either to connect the other victims in storyline related to Rick Dalton. As the connection between Rick Dalton and the Polanski's was "one pool party away from starring in a Polanski film". The movie wasn't meant to focus on Manson or the victims.
Won't you take a look and then listen:
John (there are places I remember with some people and things...some are dead and some are living, I've loved them all...) I paraphrase brother John's- In My Life-
Well, John ( pass the Gauloises french cigarettes this way) which yours truly has smoked, often sang about everlasting love in life.
Steve Ellis (the late 60's group, Love Affair, sang 'Everlasting Love.')
And, what's wrong with that? After all that's been said and done, that's better than everlasting hate-such as the hate expressed at Susan Atkins.
Certain remarks are rather in-polite, somewhat rude actually.
Now, is that nice?
To gloat over scenes of violence as many people,have in some manner, such as in this movie, I wonder. Yes I do, how about you and you too
I only saw the movie once and it could have been my imagination, but I thought that I saw headlights coming down the Tate driveway in the background when the family was going into Dalton's house.? Whether Steve Parent was represented or not, it really doesn't matter since this was a fictitious end. If the killers went into the neighbors house instead of Tate's, maybe Steve never came to sell his clock radio. The story was not about the Manson family but placing them there to add to the time in LA. If you take this as a fun ride into 69 LA and enjoy the eye candy that is the sets, then it is truly worth seeing.
Matthew,
I had little interest in this film until I read your last sentence. Now, I want to see it. Thank you.
Deb- why is this abusive criminal still posting'?>
Thanks for your review Col. I love hearing your opinions. Not that you asked for anyone else's, but here is mine: I thought Quentin did a fabulous job surprising us all. Over last year, I have been concerned about his choice of releasing the movie when he did and worried that it would depict the murders in typical Tarantino gore. He chose to write a fairy tale ("Once upon a time...") and I think he nailed it. At the end, when Sharon's voice came over the speaker inviting DiCaprio to meet her friends, I cried and almost jumped out of my seat cheering. That made the movie for me. My husband, on the other hand, lost interest in the entire movie an hour earlier. I have since seen the movie three more times. Margo's Sharon makes me smile each time she appears on screen. Is it an Oscar-worthy best pic? Perhaps if it was an hour shorter and left some of those tedious Dalton scenes on the cutting room floor. But overall I am thrilled the killers finally got the death penalty by hottie Pitt, who should definitely win an Oscar for doing what needed to be done. ;)
I loved the movie, but the criticisms are valid. I agree with Col. about the things he liked: Pitt, set, and music, but also loved DiCaprio and Robbie.
There were disappointments in depictions of Family members, especially Squeaky, who's unique personality was in no way represented.
I missed Bobby in top hat at the ranch-will have to look for that.
I will definitely look forward to the four-hour version. Just want to soak in more of the mood he created.
Just have to accept the movie for what it was instead of what it wasn't.
Same reason you do...ego
Long time since I posted here – if I ever have – so, greetings from northern Patagonia.
I haven’t yet seen the movie, so can’t really comment. However, judging on the clips I have seen they do seem to have recreated Spahn Ranch rather well.
To my point. This is a Tarantino movie, and should really be viewed as such, and measured against his oeuvre. Something of a bête noire for me is to read a review of a piece of work, be it music, music, writing or film, that criticises it for not being the piece of work the reviewer would have produced or liked to have been produced.
An author has his/her vision, which we can like or dislike – these are value judgments, at the end of the day. The product may have a certain aesthetic appeal, may tick a few artistic boxes, but this again comes down to a value judgment. It is what it is, and essentially is what the author chose it to be.
What [to me] is wrong is to pillory a director or his movie because it doesn’t deal with the murky Manson world 'accurately'. Doesn’t tell the tale the way a reviewer would like it to be told. Why should it? Why should we expect it to? Tarantino made a period movie, which has been much praised in the non-TLB world. He played hard and loose with the historical events; most directors do. Ok, this board is a bit Manson obsessed, but let us not throw out all reason in our desire to get the ‘facts’ right.
JemP
Real people were murdered in Hitlers holocaust, real people were slaves. What the hell is your point? Its Tarantino's fantasy world where horrible events in history are avenged.
Frankly, this is the only movie ever made about this shit that treats Sharon Tate as a living, breathing human being and not a stock character waiting to be slaughtered. As a vibrant young woman. We see her go about her dah to day business. I didnt know the ending when I saw it, so I assumed she was going to die. Just made the way that he wrote the character all the more tragic.
It was never meant to really even be about Manson, Tarantino said that like two years ago. Picking historical inaccuracies apart in a movie who's very plotline is a jumble of historical inaccuracies is a ridiculous waste of time and barely even a legitimate criticism.
Bravo Gimme3Steps. To my knowledge there has never been a movie or documenatary about Sharon that wasn't tragic. This one brightened her memory.
And Mon Durphy...whoever you are...why such ripping and name calling on the Col liking Brad Pitt. I know Col spews his own vitriol at times but I would like to know one thoughtful,hetero man who didn't think Pitt was smoking hot in that movie. Even my macho husband and football coach father saw the Pitt factor. Pitt's character whooped Tex, Susan, Katie, Clem, and Bruce Lee. He didn't sleep with the cute little Manson girl and he saved Sharon and friends all without messing up his hair. Dude. That's hot. This movie was not supposed to be a Manson documentary. Enjoy it for what it was. Col...really liking the Col Presents...
I have been wanting to discuss this movie for a long time. Thanks for bringing it up Col. I have an entire plot in my head for a sequal.
The Brad Pitt character was hot, sure. He also killed his wife. At least that's the impression I got from the movie.
I'm not too convinced Cliff killed his wife. Hopefully we'll get the answer in the Netflix extended event
The "Cliff killed his wife" storyline was reminiscent of Robert Wagner and Natalie Wood. In fact, during the scene when Cliff and his wife are on the boat,the wife talks about a Natalie. I wonder if Tarantino thinks Wagner and Cliff are guilty. My imagination tells me both women slipped into the water during a fight and the men walked away without helping them back in the boats.
Did anyone catch the TV announcer in Cliff's trailer talk about Christooher Jones? That was a cool little nugget. A friend recently reminded me that Jones claims he was having an affair with Sharon. (That story was also on this blog once, I think.)
What's with feet in QT movies? I hate feet.
Mr. Humphrat said:
There were disappointments in depictions of Family members, especially Squeaky, who's unique personality was in no way represented.
I agree with that. Aside from Clem, none of the actors playing the parts of Family members looked or acted like the people they were playing. I am wondering if that was intentional.
What's the only wood that doesn't float?
Good to see you're still quacking, Jempud.
I agree that it's pointless to pillory a director for anachronisms and historical flakeyness... but surely one has the right to just think a movie's crap? Personally, I stopped enjoying Terentino's films years ago. The first couple were great but he quickly seemed to devolve into a caricature of himself (IMO). Once Upon A Time In Hollywood seems about on a par with Inglourious Basterds... basically a 2D, live action cartoon. Fine if ya dig gratuitous ultra-violence... but other than the sets, there's not a real lot happening. Just my opinion of course. Good review, Col.
Good to see you here too, brownrice – I have always respected your views and considered them well-founded and to the point.
Film directors find a style, I think. My favourite directors – Lynch, Kubrick, Scorsese, Antonioni, to name an invidious quartet – are consistent in what they do. I have heard all four praised and rubbished, as I have Tarantino.
IMHO Tarantino has made two great films, Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, both helped enormously by the cinematography and soundtrack. He has also made some crap (again IMHO) movies, such as From Dusk till Dawn. But reaction to movies must necessarily be, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder and I respect your views as you no doubt respect mine.
Nice to see the Col posting less belligerently: he has good things to say, and can express them well. But he does need to curb his retaliatory urge to lash out gratuitously at other posters. Not, I imagine, that he cares.
JemP
Lol
Col, a few points I’d like to make.
You are far more knowledgeable than I am in regards to Manson facts and information. Most of us on this blog are far more knowledgeable than 99.9% of the rest of the world on Manson facts and information. Similarly, you, because of what you do, will look at a film differently than most.
My wife is junior to me by a decade. While she’s heard about Manson/TLB/HS, she has no frame of reference and I found myself (at her request) having to explain some of the facts and showing her some real life pictures of those involved so she understood the movie and storyline a little better. We’d pause the movie and we’d talk about some of those things. Again, she did not know that Manson/family/Sharon was a part of the storyline until she asked me to explain “who are these people”?
99.999999% who view this film are in the same category as my wife only they have to rely on Google to provide background information, or they don’t care enough to do any research and like/dislike the film based on their limited knowledge of the actual case and facts thereof.
I applaud QT for weaving Manson into the storyline. He could have easily chosen a different protagonist and this is why I don’t understand why people on this blog jump to facts of the case and poo poo the film. Why not enjoy that he chose to use Manson at all?
Anyone like the movie Captain Phillips? My buddy is one of the guys who pulled the trigger on that mission. Anyone see Zero Dark Thirty? I know the guys who went up the stairs and pulled the trigger on Bin Laden AND have met the female CIA analyst portrayed in the film. I personally was in Mogadishu for Blackhawk Down. I had dinner on Monday night with both the actor who played one of the guys from the movie 13 Hours AND the actual guy he portrayed in the movie. I have first-hand knowledge or have been given official briefings/intelligence updates on every significant military event since 1990 so IN THAT REGARD, I’ve never been a big military film guy. Just because I served doesn’t mean I’m the first in line to watch those films. I don’t like those types of films. Generally, my wife wants to see them and so I watch. I don’t critique those films for factual information because I realize Hollywood has to take liberties and adjust storylines to condense a ton of information into a 90 minute format that the audience understands.
All that to say THIS to those on this blog that have seen the film: Why all the hate? Who cares that we didn’t have another 10 minutes trying to introduce Steve Parent as a character? Who cares if Gypsy is a real person and Sundance is a fictional one? Why can’t you just enjoy the film for what it is? It’s ALL FICTION. Be happy and enjoy that we got to see an awesome representation of life on Spahn Ranch, the Twinkie truck, and all the other crap that we on this blog are all fascinated with. I don’t get you people or the disdain for the movie. I LOVED it. My wife and I were literally CHEERING for Brad Pitt and that scene was such an amazing release.
I understand what you mean AC. I whispered facts to Julie during the film to keep her in the loop. When the killers went to the wrong house I laughed aloud. When Pitt began slamming Krenny's head against the wall and blood was spraying everywhere I howled with laughter - well, because that's what QT intended. I was the only turkey in the theater who got it, and that's a shame. However, it was a masterpiece all the same!
So glad everyone's finally talking about this movie! I've seen it three times, altho I didn't see Bobby. When I watch again, I'll look for that. I'm in the minority, but I thought Leo was fantastic. Brad's great, of course, but Leo took it to another level. Love him. I was disappointed in the way the family members were portrayed bc they felt like cartoons. (Susan in the car at the end was ridiculous. Squeaky guarding George felt ridiculous, all mean-eyed and hissing.) Was that a choice? They are always portrayed as cartoon weirdos. One of the fascinating things to me about this case is that they were/are much more complex. Maybe that's hard to show. Or maybe QT took the easy way out.
Random thoughts:
I thought it was a great choice that Manson showed up in that one quick, brief scene. It felt intentional. Just like the way he was involved in the actual murders. He was there, yet he wasn't completely.
Sharon was also portrayed as a cartoon. Sweet and innocent. Altho that packed a punch at the end, hearing her voice over the intercom and then the camera rose to shoot them all from above, like from heaven. I choked up. Even my husband, who is like most people and doesn't know every detail of the case, sighed sadly, "Awww, man....." during that scene.
I like when Cliff punched Clem. It was extremely satisfying.
I did not like the violence committed against Katie and Susan, especially the first time I saw the movie. Katie's treatment was especially hard for me to take. Altho the second time I saw it, I understood better. The choice was to inflict violence on their faces the way they did at Cielo that night to Sharon and Abigail? Maybe.
The soundtrack is indeed completely awesome. We've been listening to it since August and I don't think it will ever lose its luster. 50 years on, that music is just the best.
Cue up Treat Her Right: Hey, hey hey!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEnGjhDFtKY&list=PLDisKgcnAC4SWMnyw1VOT8lP96bRWbR-P&index=2&t=0s
I'm curious Col. if you have any thoughts on how hard/impossible it would be to do a super accurate casting job (to manson blog satisfaction) on a TLB movie.
I've especially felt as if almost no effort has gone into trying to find someone like Patricia Krenwinkle in any of the movies.
On another note, I had asked way in the past about the Manson people's use of the word 'changes' and wondered if it was one of Charlie's words they latched onto. I was told no it was part of the counter-culture vernacular, but I never saw an example of the way it was used similar to the Mansons until I saw this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whQLERsQSh0 of Janis Joplin at Woodstock. She uses the word around :40 into the video and it made me go "aha that sounds like the way the family used it." I wonder if it related to the way LSD trips affected people and changes people went through during a trip.
I saw the movie once, when it came out .... and commented here at that time. I've probably forgotten some of the finer details since then. I remember looking for factual discrepancies for the first 20 minutes until I realized that wasn't going to be the point at all.
I thought it was entertaining because both topics, the murders and 1960's L.A. are things that fascinate me. My lasting impression is that it was great, flawed, poorly-edited, enthralling and odd all at the same time. Honestly, it's like the White Album itself .... which also contains all the same charteristics.
Peter said:
What's the only wood that doesn't float?
Would that be Natalie?
What did Princess Grace have that Natalie could have used?
and I guess in QT's universe the LaBiancas remain alive and well...
Go Orange
Starship said
and I guess in QT's universe the LaBiancas remain alive and well.
No. The movie ended before the second night. You should check the movie out. Fun entertainment if you are not looking for faults.. It's a fantasy.
OT:
Someone is asking $150.00 for Little Paul's book on ebay. I wonder if it's as yellow as my copy.
Hi, Matt,
Yes I've seen it twice. And I like it for the same reasons many others do, but have many mixed feelings about the ending. My thought as the ambulance with Cliff in it pulled away from Rick was, "if only" and I found it hard not to cry. But I laughed out loud at all the same parts that you did.
To start with, I don't view the movie as anything other than a fantasy based on historical events. It would be something like the Anastasia story, where Anastasia survives the killings, and goes on in an imagined parallel existence. Or the Titanic had missed the iceberg...
Given that, this is what I really liked:
1) sound track
2) some of the driving scenes in Hollywood/West Hollywood/Beverley Hills. These were very reminiscent of the look/feel of that time period. Height of buildings, etc. I'm trying to recall, but at that time the LA City Hall was, by far, the tallest building in LA...really stood out.
3) the way Westwood Village looked. This was a very pleasant place at that time!
Things that seemed a bit jarring:
1) the approach to 10050 Cielo, up where the gate was, was not very much like shown in the film. The closest houses were not that close, nor was there any house like where DiCaprio's house was. In fact, there couldn't be any such house due to the hillside.
2) the skies were much clearer in the film than in reality. It was VERY SMOGGY down there, then. Frankly, it tended to feel oppressive.
I just bought this film and have been rewatching it and looking forward to the discussion of it on this blog!
The first thing that really jumps out for me is that its very telling and very Un-Tarantino to not bring up Tate's films "Eye of the Devil" and the other horror - themed film she did around '66-'67. Tarantino is a film buff and obsessive and of course he is very aware of these films and their place in TLB conspiracy lore. I feel like Tarantino handled the whole Sharon Tate issue by avoiding all of the seedier/occult/sex tinged threads that lead to Sharon. Except for the 'wink' about dirty movies. This way she becomes a symbol rather than an actual fleshed-out person. It undoubtedly made negotiations and dealings with her family much more amiable. This was a good thing for Quentin because remember at the time of production of this film, the Me Too movement was peaking, there were stories about Uma Thurman being hurt on a film, gossip about Tarantino and misogny, etc. He couldn't afford to get into all that again by playing rough with Margot Robbie and Tate's legacy. But I bet at one time there was a more lurid, more explicit version of this film in QT's mind.
Congratulations to Brad Pitt winning Best Supporting Actor for his role as Cliff Booth in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood!"
It's only a movie. Don't take it so fucking personally! I wish the end would be True. All of them deserve To die
Speaking of Once Upon A Time In Hollyweird...
Roy Head has passed...
Here's the real Roy Head on Hollywood A Go-Go
https://youtu.be/3gEnQ8VVWEU
Post a Comment