If we're going to compare 'wacky', then I would place a full paycheck that an over-the-hill TV actor blasting a knife-wielding lunatic hippy in a pool away with a WWII surplus flame thrower immediately after he was lounging in said same pool singing along to SNOOPY VS. THE RED BARON is WAY wackier than killing Nazi's during WWII. But hey....that's just me.....and the rest of the theater that was in hysterics as it was happening.
You missed my point. I said that before the absurd Hitler gunning, the film had many wacky moment prior to that which made it more digestable. In this new film, the wacky hippy slaying just came from nowhere. Prior to it, the film wasn't really zany at all. It was very factual and frankly unfunny (apart from the occasional chuckle moment).
Lee Cliff scene was Cliff’s -Memory- of what happened, as he replays certain events that led to him ending up as Rick’s gopher. Sharron Tate is the innocence of the audience and the nostalgia of old Hollywood fading away before our eyes. She is a cipher rather than a main character. This was QT’s homage to Old Hollywood the place where dreams came true. Hollywood was and still is place where fantasies come to life. A place were revisionism is tolerated if it makes sense in the context of the movie and makes money at the BO.
Try to make a cool movie out of today’s pop culture. What’s it going to be about? Vincent and Jules go to a safe zone for some gluten-free vegan hamburgers?
I was apprehensive about seeing this having lived through the Manson and Night Stalker eras in Los Angeles. I always avoid spoilers and it ruined my enjoyment of the movie waiting for the Tate murder. Now that I know how it ends I will have to see it again and pick up on the fun. I was amused to read a review (after viewing) mentioning the long gone haunts of The Bruin Theater, Musso and Franks, El Coyote, Chili John's and Casa Vega. All of which were still going strong the last time I was in LA.
I wonder if that apprehension (not knowing about the twist, but anticipating the Cielo murders) puts a damper on it for other viewers. I knew about the alternate-reality ending going in to see it (but not the specifics) and was able to very much enjoy the whole of the movie leading up to it, laughing out loud for much of it, plus the twist (though sharing that mix of intense relief, released suspsense, and some revulsion during the attack scenes at the end). I can see how it might take the humor out of the proceedings if one is dreading the horrific climax.
From this Pan-Am historical site... In 1969, when Pan Am received Boeing's brand-new jumbo jet, Ron had been tapped to be the General Manager of 747 maintenance. 747's Beginning - Pan Am Historical Foundation So let's say for film purposes, it's possible that one of the very first Pan-Am 747 Jumbo flights from Rome to LA could have happened in August, 1969. Yeah, Hefner Holmby Hills "Playboy mansion" in LA didn't happen until about 1974. And there was no Peaches Records on Hollywood Blvd. until at least 1971, maybe early 1972. There's a lot of small anachronisms like that. It's as if the film is not a documentary! Thank you -- I bow to your understanding of what I think Tarantino's intent was.
Longer! Among other things, there's another complete Lancer Western scene that's about 5-6 minutes. You mean he got too intense and way over-the-top? I am shocked, shocked do you hear, that a Tarantino film would not be subtle.
I didn't really like the end of Inglourious Basterds, I understood what he wanted to do with the film but I didn't really like it but what he did with the ending of this movie I really enjoyed. It was a sort of chaotic humour which made the whole thing really entertaining. I liked how the one Manson girl said she left her knife in the car and just drove off that was quite funny too and the callback to the flamethrower.
No offense, but you seem to have poor reading comprehension if that’s what you surmise from my comment. No offense.
No. Even the article you quoted mentions Dec 1969 as the month that the first 747s were received by Pan Am. August was many months before that. PanAm 747s didn’t fly with passengers until early 1970, as is described in the Wikipedia entry. I stand by my original criticism of the Tarantino’s fact checkers being grossly, even dangerously incompetent. They should be fired, or at least reimburse the producers part of their wages. Disgraceful and unbecoming. I hate them.
Excuse me, I just spit water all over my computer screen when you put the words "Tarantino" and "Fact-Checkers" in the same sentence. Next, you'll be telling me there was no such dog food brand as the one shown in the film. Or that it wouldn't be possible for a guy to have a working flame-thrower sitting in a shed in his backyard. I actually did not know the ending when I sat down to see the movie for the first time, and I was also filled with dread wondering who was gonna get out of there alive. Nobody is safe in a Tarantino movie -- not even the heroes -- and I fully expected either DiCaprio's character or Pitt's character to die in some kind of bloody fight with the Manson family. What he did was a surprise, and I thought was respectful and satisfying at the same time.
BTW, isn't it interesting to note that "Rick Dalton" (Leonardo DiCaprio's character) goes to Italy and marries a beautiful Italian woman... and here's a news story in today's Hollywoo Reporter about Quentin Tarantino and his new wife... Quentin Tarantino and Wife Daniella Expecting First Child Note how she resembles somebody from Once Upon a Time in Hollywood:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised there are airplane nerds on this board too. There's appreciating accuracy and then there's needing to pull the rod out.
Wipe your chin and mop up your keyboard. Huge, yuuuuuge difference between funny, made-up dog food label and substituting (out of lazy incompetence) one real aircraft for another. Huuuuuge! You must be one of those fact checkers that worked on the movie. Shame! Give Quentin his money back!!
Now, as someone who hat listened to the Spotify playlist with every single track in the film (listened to it about 30 times), I think I have curated the proper program that is both complete and essential (Including "Twelve Thirty (Young Girls Are Coming to the Canyon). Enjoy. Ghostworld's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Program, a playlist by Brad Schimmel on Spotify
I was talking about the scene where the Tate character goes to the cinema. It wasn't over the top or intense at all. It just dragged on and on. He over-stated it in an effort to make her character more endearing I suppose.
I get your point that her part was over played. However, imo it is why that scene worked. Now, if she hadn’t had such a sweetness in her face while over playing it, as you say, I don’t think it would have worked and I would agree with your point. I think a lot of thought and planning went into that segment, likely with Robbie’s input. I think every second of it was well staged and worked beautifully, and I bet they tried a lot of combinations of character attributes before settling on what we saw. It didn’t work for you and likely others, and I doubt they would have come up with something that would have worked for everyone watching the film. However, I would imagine that coming up with a workable collective set of emotional attributes for Sharon was one of the most difficult aspects of the film for Quentin to get right, and it would be important for her to have that dialed in at the end when she invites Leonardo into her home. Remember that Sharon’s sister approved of Quentin’s character treatment so perhaps it isn’t that far off. Hard to believe a woman like that really existed, but it was a different time I guess. You have a lot of issues with the film, which you are entitled to. I think it’s really important to take that “Once Upon A Time” thing very literal. If not, your points become very real.
