I was thinking, what if this movie were not made by QT and was instead written and directed by some other random filmmaker. Would the film still be appreciated? I feel like most of the film’s acclaim comes from understanding QT’s history, and without this being his personal tribute to the time period, does the film lose some of its magic?
shareIt would be considered an average movie which is what it is.
shareI believe it would be considered just as brilliant a film as it is now, and we'd be rightfully hailing its director as a genius.
shareOkay, what makes it brilliant?
shareEverything about it.
shareGreat answer. I will wager that the fact it has Quentin Tarantino's name on it is the real reason you like it so much.
shareYou asked a ridiculously broad and vague question, so I gave an equally broad, vague answer. Who directs a film may influence whether or not I see it, but will have no bearing on my opinion of it.
shareName one specific thing.
shareI enjoy films that improve with each viewing. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has so much going on between the plot points that it needs to be watched more than once. I watched it three times during its initial run in the cinema, and each time I picked up more. To me, that's the sign of an excellent film.
I love the depth of the story, and how thought-provoking it is. I have a small circle of film fan friends, with whom I sometimes see films, and with whom I always discuss them after we've seen them, whether together or on our own. Some films don't spark much in the way of conversation. That isn't to say they're bad films, or unenjoyable, but rather that they aren't that deep. My favorite films are those with depth that spark long, lively discussions of the plot and story, the nuances, the meanings, and so on. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood lead to hours of conversation and theorizing, and deep dives into the nuances of the plot.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood led to hours of discussion, as it has so many levels to its story, and broaches so many topics. Those are the kinds of films I most enjoy.
Wow. That's a pretty good sell actually. I'm not a big fan of QT, but that description makes it sound enticing.
shareI'd say it's a pretty good film and giving it a shot isn't a bad idea. I heard before I saw it in theatres that it was a bit of a rambling film; there were long, languorous sections between plot points, and I should just "go with it". That's good advice. This movie isn't in a hurry and you shouldn't be, either.
And, if you're not a big QT fan, this might be your favourite QT film. It has a lot of his fingerprints on it, of course, but it's not as guns-out as most of his films are. It's a different sort of movie for QT, and it feels more nostalgic than "homage" and it's almost about lethargy and yearning and feeling the heat of a long day.
And, if you're not a big QT fan, this might be your favourite QT film.
i can name lots of things.
it captures an era perfectly, in a wistful, sad but also fun way.
it has a building tension that ratchets up throughout the film until it explodes in the most satisfying way.
it's sneakily moving, with an ending that surprised me with how much it actually kinda moved me - the first time in his career that tarantino made a movie that actually got me a little emotional.
it's got a great main character who, even though he's rich and famous and annoyingly good looking, can still be related to. you can understand his worries about failing & his insecurities, and you want the best for him. at least i did.
it's tarantino's best movie imo and one of the best films of the last 10 years. it would be a great movie no matter who made it.
I think Tarantino is one of only a few directors who have the clout in Hollywood to create a film like this, but if it were to have somehow been created by another director, opinions on it would be nearly identical.
There are a number of people who dislike Tarantino, and by extension will dislike anything he creates. Those people would likely approach this film with an open mind, and many would probably enjoy it since they don't have a vested interest in hating it.
I don't think the converse is true, as I don't get the sense there are very many people who like everything Tarantino does simply because he does it. There are no doubt a few such people, but his fans don't strike me as any more or less zealous than the fans of other directors. If he makes a masterpiece, they praise it. If he makes a turkey, they pan it.
YOU TRULY EARN THE TITLE FILMBUFF...EXPERTLY WORDED RESPONSE THAT I 100% AGREE WITH...THANK YOU FOR SAVING ME THE TIME OF FINDING THE WORDS MYSELF. NOEMOJI
share"it's tarantino's best movie imo and one of the best films of the last 10 years."
Are you kidding me?
It's his worst. You think this movie is better than Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction? And I am not a Tarantino hater, at least I wasn't until recently. I waited for 30 minutes in line to go see the movie. I wanted to like it.
"it captures an era perfectly, in a wistful, sad but also fun way."
He had some guys and girls wear hippie clothes and old fashioned haircuts and they drove an old car. Wow, such a fucking genius. How did he manage to capture the era? You think he captured the era how? What did the do exactly in the movie that captures the era? Where was all the sex and drugs? Oh that's right, Tarantino wasn't getting any back then. Scooby Doo captures that era better than this movie. I don't even know what era is that, 60ties or the 70ties?
"it's sneakily moving"
It's slow and boring. It goes on for 3 fucking hours with nothing happening. There is one violent over the top finale where Tarantino gets to rewrite history again, it was even more over the top than "Inglorious basterds". The whole movie is Tarantino's fantasy on him saving Sharon Tate. I understand that, but there is nothing besides that in the movie.
Characters are not likeable. Bradd Pitt and Leo are bland as fuck. Not enough to carry it for 3 hours doing nothing. And no, it's not even a slice of life. That would mean I am following an interesting character at least living his or her life. No, this is a totally empty movie with 2D flat characters that infantile overly inflated ego filmmaker thinks are cool. "Oh wow, my character can beat up Bruce Lee, that makes him super duper cool. He also like totally saves Sharon Tate"
The movie doesn't have the charisma Tarantino used to have, the originality. The unique tempo is gone since his original editor died unfortunately, she gave the tempo he needs. He thinks he can edit his own shit, he fucking sucks at editing.
I don't think you're giving the film a fair shake.
My reasons for enjoying it are completely different than damosuzuki's, but I can see his points. And no, it wasn't just hippie clothes and old cars. He rebuilt entire sections of Los Angeles, and recreated a city that had been lost to time. More than that, he captured perfectly the mood of the time, as Old Hollywood was giving reluctant way to New Hollywood.
There is so much more going on in this film than you are acknowledging.
"He rebuilt entire sections of Los Angeles, and recreated a city that had been lost to time."
I never lived in old LA so I have no idea if he rebuilt anything or not. If me knowing the LA of the 70ties is required to know if he recreated the era perfectly then this movie caters to a VERY specific demographic.
That 70ties show recreated that era perfectly.
To the average viewer to recreate the 60ties and 70ties era, wear some bell pants and have that big haircut and you are there. Drive an old timer and you are pretty there.
Linklater recreated the era in his "Dazed and confused", but that was a slice of life movie with actual characters that you feel you are in that era.
This movie is a Tarantino movie with characters who NEVER existed in any era, it is his fantasy, they just have dumb haircuts.
It is his weakest movie he ever made. And I know where he is coming from and what he was trying to do. He was trying to write a love letter to his heroes of the 60ties, the movie actors and stuntmen who made his favorite movies when he was growing up. That is why there is no sex and drugs in the movie even though that would era appropriate.
Because those characters are his heroes, his role models. They are the ones that enriched his childhood and made him love movies, so he made an idealized version of them. That is why they are two dimensional also.
[deleted]
[deleted]
My response was too long for Moviechat. I'm going to have to split it into a couple posts...
The recreation of LA is just one aspect of the film, and one that appeals to some more than others. It's akin to Scorsese building a recreation of 1860s New York for Gangs of New York. It adds to the immersive effect of the film, but in and of itself it's but one ingredient in the film.
You have brought up sex and drugs a couple times now. Both of those were part of the film. Neither was a dominant feature, as the film isn't about either, but they were included. And it isn't as if the late '60s was all about those topics. Plenty of people weren't promiscuous or using drugs. In fact, I'd warrant that MOST people back then weren't, it's just that more were doing it than previously, so it became a topic of discussion.
The beauty of the film for me lies in the characters, their stories, and the overarching themes of the film. I enjoyed the development and changes the characters underwent, though the main thrust of the film isn't how they changed, but how they related to one another, and how they were, or were not, able to fit into a world that had changed around them. Both are fascinating character studies.
Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is the real deal. He's the genuine embodiment of the John Wayne archetype that Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) plays in his films, yet his life pales in comparison to that of Dalton's. He spends his days running errands for Dalton, constantly reassuring him that he's worthwhile, but lives in a trailer behind a drive-in while Dalton lives in luxury. Yet, if you think about it, Dalton achieved his fame, and amassed his wealth, pretending to be Booth onscreen.
Throughout the film we see Booth effortlessly navigating dangerous situations, yet remaining stoic throughout. Whether he is casually leaping onto a rooftop to fix an antenna or talking smack to Bruce Lee then backing it up with his fists, he's a real-life cowboy. His scene at Spahn Ranch is basically Western come to life. He shows up, confronts a band of outlaws, does exactly what he says he going to do despite their protests, then turns the tables on the punk who let the air out his tire. He's isn’t acting, he’s a bad motherfucker. His real life is what Hollywood tough guys pretend their lives are like.
Meanwhile, Dalton is wrought with indecision and insecurity, and only shines in a pretend Western. He has to dig deep and really channel a character, and focus on the fact that he's acting. He cries tears of joy over the approval of an 8-year-old girl. After his scene, in which he's compared to another famously overwrought fellow, Hamlet, he basks in congratulations for being tough in a moment of fake danger. Compare that to Booth at the Ranch, who casually navigated true danger, yet received no accolades, or any acknowledgment whatsoever, for his actions.
Then comes the finale, where Booth does all the fighting, gets stabbed, kills two of Manson's clan outright, and mortally wounds the third, who staggers into the pool and would have drowned, at which point Dalton, in an over-the-top fake Hollywood manner (as opposed to Pitt doing it with his fists and his faithful dog) burns her to death with a flamethrower. Significantly, the flamethrower itself was leftover from a movie. Again, Booth calmly wins the day through natural toughness and ability, after which Dalton fools himself, and others, into believing he also saved the day, using outlandish movie props in the process. It’s the Spahn Ranch/ Western movie set dichotomy all over again.
And then, of course, Dalton is given all the credit. He ends up relating his heroic tale to Sharon Tate and her friends while Booth is being taken to the hospital, and the film ends with him being granted entrance to the New Hollywood that had previously shut him out, and leaving behind the Old Hollywood, and the best friend who gave him access to it.
By this, I don't mean he was personally abandoning his friend. I mean that as Booth was being driven away in an ambulance, having suffered from an injury that would almost certainly end his career as a stuntman, Dalton was finally being allowed "behind the Green Door," and was on the cusp of starting a new acting career, one that likely wouldn't require a stuntman. He'd still be buddies with Booth, but the days of "them against the world" are over, and Booth will go back to his meager life in a trailer, while Dalton will live among the New Hollywood elite.
There's also a clear implication that moving forward, Dalton is going to be performing in more modern roles. No more westerns or retro action flicks that require a stuntman, but rather films like Polanski made-- psychological thrillers, crime noir dramas— films that require the acting chops he was able to channel in the earlier scene, with the child.
By 1969 the rugged leading man days of Hollywood had wound down, and the meek anti-hero days were dawning. The leading men were no longer of the archetype from which Dalton's image was built. Suddenly hippie types like Kristoffer Tabori, Michael Sarrazin, and Chris Jones were getting leading roles. The hippie children of Dalton-esque actors were making movies, actors like Robert Walker, Jr., Peter Fonda; even Arlo Guthrie was starring in films! And even actors we today think of as tougher. or at the very least more staid-- Jack Nicholson and Michael Douglas come to mind-- got their start playing counter-culture, shaggy, hippie types.
The sense I got from that last scene was that between a new wife and a ticket to pass beyond the Green Door into New Hollywood, Dalton no longer needs Rick the way he once did, and their friendship will never be the same. Compare this to the first time we see them together, where Dalton breaks down in tears, and needs Rick to pick him up. How much did either change vs. how much did the world change around them?
In a bigger picture sense, Hollywood no longer needs Cliff Booths, and only needs Rick Daltons if they are willing to abandon the tough guy personas and embrace the modern, mellower male roles.
Dude you are really exploring deep things about the characters that are not in the movie at all. It is far simpler than that, there is no personal drama between the stuntman and the actor, even though it would be interesting if there was.
They are best friends at the beginning, the middle and the end of the movie. Their relationship is not explored at all, there are barely any emotions between the two or interesting dialogues. Everything you just wrote is a movie you had in your head while you were watching, a movie better than was on the screen.
Tarantino loves the stuntmen and the actors, they are his heroes of that era. That is why the actor gets all the praise at the end, he is whiny but that is for comedic effect. The stuntman also is badass because Tarantino is a fanboy of stuntmen in general. There is no "will they, won't they" in the movie. The actor gets all he wants, makes success, proves himself as the actor (to 8 year old girl) and gets into Hollywood high class at the end. The stuntman gets to be the hero. It's a straightforward happy ending.
I agree with you 100%. I also never got the scenes where Sharon Tate watches herself in a theatre. Felt like they were just added in there to give Margot Robbie something to do, but doesn´t make for very compelling viewing.
shareShe is a 2D damsel in distress not explored as an actual character. It is not because Tarantino is sexist like one interviewer implied, it is just an idealized version of Sharon that exists in the movie because Tarantino idealizes the actors of the era and wants to save her at the end. Every character is 2D and doesn't do anything interesting in the movie.
shareLiterally everything I wrote is based directly on the film. It's all laid out there. That you missed it is on you, not the director.
shareIf I missed it, it is on the director. Tarantino is not known for subtlety by the way, but when there is one I pick it up quickly enough. For example in Jackie Brown, Inglorious Basterds and even in Django Unchained there is a lot of subtext where the movie is not really about what it is about.
Not in this one, what you see is what you get.
you are entitled to your preferences. de gustibus non est disputandum as the kids like to say.
i indeed think it's tarantino's best. for the reasons i gave above & others.
happy posting to you anyway.
[deleted]
I DO...I AM A HUGE TARANTINO FANBOY...MY TWO FAVORITE OF HIS FILMS ARE JACKIE BROWN AND ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD...RESERVOIR DOGS A CLOSE THIRD. NOEMOJI
shareInteresting. No. I don't think so.
shareThis ties into what used to be called "the auteur theory" and it works for certain directors(Hitchcock, Kubrick, Woody Allen, Scorsese), and it REALLY works for the comparative few like QT(and Woody Allen) who direct their own scripts.
Simply put...it is impossible to imagine this movie being made by anyone other than Tarantino. Its his life, his vision, his dialogue...even his Red Apple cigarettes for the umpteenth time. The world waited for it as "the next Tarantino movie" and set up our expectatations accordingly.
What's interesting is the ways in which, indeed, it is NOT like QT films before it. Key: no major black characters(and thus, the "N" word doesn't show up). And sort of key: no real violence until the very end, save Pitt's beat-down of the goonish Manson guy at the Spahn Ranch.
This movie has Tarantino's style and vision written over it, that is true. However it is an extremely average movie, if made by anyone else it would not get as much publicity.
shareTons of movies have Tarantino’s style written all of it too, but those movies rarely get the publicity as Tarantino’s own work. I agree.
shareI see what you're saying but these auteurs are famous for a reason. While there might be some movies that get more credit than deserved because a name is attached, there is evidence that there are many movies that don't reach claim in spite of names being attached. For instance, Kubrick's movies didn't seem to garner much fanfare until a few years after their release (for instance, The Shining was up for multiple Razzies until almost a decade later when people finally realized it was one of the better horror movies ever made). Death Proof and the Hateful Eight did not get a ton of support from critics or audiences despite being Tarantino flicks but Inglorious Basterds and OATIH did. If we're to believe a movie gets acclaim just by having a name attached, then Deathrpoof should have been up for some Oscars.
shareIf we're to believe a movie gets acclaim just by having a name attached, then Deathrpoof should have been up for some Oscars.
---
I certainly agree -- but I think like some of the other great auteurs(Hitchcock comes to mind of another generation) , even a "lesser QT film" is better than the best of a lot of other directors. QT acknowledged this himself...saying something like "Death Proof is my worst film, but only compared to my others. Its still pretty good." (He didn't say those exact words, but that's what he meant).
I think QT best films were his first three -- Reservoir Dogs, the groundbreaking Pulp Fiction, and Jackie Brown(his best film, IMHO.)
Then he took a whopping six years off and came back with the sadistic and action heavy "Kill Bill"(in two parts) and "Death Proof." But THOSE movies had incredible action in them.
QT began his "comeback" with Inlgorious Basterds, and for my money -- after one leaves out the initial "LA Crime Trilogy" that made his name -- each QT movie was better than the one before it. Its like QT kept learning how to make his movies better after Death Proof. Fewer overlong scenes. Better pacing. Great production value(The Hateful Eight looks like a million bucks.)
This "run" rather ends wrong near the end, though. I think The Hateful Eight is actually better than OATIH. But that's just me.
You're quite right about Kubrick, btw. The Shining wasn't very well received at all in 1980, and there are a few published reports of people angrily walking out -- it wasn't scary or bloody enough. Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut -- 12 years apart! were considered let downs from the man who gave us Dr. Strangelove and 2001.
But the years showed up Kubrick's acheivements to be greater than they looked at the time. The Shining and Full Metal Jacket pretty much have cults now.
Barry Lyndon was also poorly received I've heard. Kubrick had a knack for making movies were only appreciated years later.
shareHe has a small shitty house and hes got this Rottweiler that's kind of wild and untamed.
shareIt would be considered an above average movie but that's it
Most people have a natural cognitive bias when it comes to judging a person's work if the person behind the work already has a high reputation. Make no mistake, Tarantino being the brains behind this sprinkles some of his magic onto the film and makes people see it in a better light than they probably would have otherwise
Well I'm not a QT fan but I loved this movie, it could be directed by anyone and I'd still call it a masterpiece.
shareTHIS FILM COULD ONLY BE WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY QT..BY ANYONE ELSE IT WOULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT FLICK.
sharenope. and i love QT
shareThis movie WOULDN'T have been made without QT.
It is just too strange and offbeat of a movie. A Joe Schmo who came up with this idea/script would not even be looked at by the majors.
Because strange = gamble at the Hollywood box office, no big $$$ movie studio would back this film. No $$$, no DiCaprio and Pitt.
i mean, i think martin scorcese could've made a film really similar to this
shareThis movie WOULDN'T have been made without QT.
It is just too strange and offbeat of a movie. A Joe Schmo who came up with this idea/script would not even be looked at by the majors.
Because strange = gamble at the Hollywood box office, no big $$$ movie studio would back this film. No $$$, no DiCaprio and Pitt.
--
There you go. Exactly!
QT was here setting out to make his first movie after having to break up with Harvey Weinstein as his "studio boss"(first Miramax, then The Weinstein Company.) When QT put the word out that he was going to do a new movie from a new script...the studios competed HARD to get this movie. Offering him unlimited freedom and high budget(high enough to hire Leo AND Brad...AND Al...AND Margot.) BECAUSE he was QT.
QT may have his haters all over the internet, but at the studios and with major star actors...he still matters. He has ALWAYS mattered. More often than not, QT delivers a very big box office hit (not so with Paul Thomas Anderson or Wes Anderson or Alexander Payne, to mention some other "American auteurs.") More often than not, QT writes a script with great roles for actors -- Brad Pitt and Chris Waltz WON Oscars for their QT films(Waltz -- TWO) , many others have been NOMINATED for Oscars in QT films(Samuel L Jackson, Travolta, Robert Forster, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Leo.) And QT has two screenwriting Oscar wins(Pulp Fiction and Django Unchained) and a number of other nominations.
Simply put: this movie matters BECAUSE its a Tarantino movie. That's why he got the creative freedom, the budget, and the stars to make it.