[tdockweiler]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - 4/10

Not much of a story here. What the heck is this even about really?
Most scenes to me were rather boring and pointless.
Sure I did like the set designs and some of the acting, but that's about it.
Also had a hard time figuring out if some parts were suppose to be funny or not.
Like the last scene. What the heck? Found it more sickening than anything.

I guess it helps to mention I don't really like the director's films.
I actually turned off "The Inglourious Basterds". Normally you couldn't pay me to see one of his films in the theater.
I did see "Pulp Fiction" a dozen times when I was younger, but haven't seen it in maybe 10 years.

The whole film just felt really pointless with not much happening at all.
I really just wished I had skipped it.

BTW anyone seen "Chunking Express"? It's one of my favorite Hong Kong films.
It was released by Quentin Tarantino's "Rolling Thunder Pictures" (and later by The Criterion Collection).
You should watch that instead.

 

[Davesrose]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - 4/10

Not much of a story here. What the heck is this even about really?

I wonder if there might be some difference of opinion based on age range? I just watched this movie and would rate it maybe 8/10. My favorite Tarantino films are still Kill Bill followed by Death Proof. I found this worthwhile in which there's references to a bygone era in Hollywood and spaghetti westerns. I'm also glad I watched this movie while having my laptop at hand: I was constantly looking up historical references (many of which actually true).

 

[Zojokkeli]

Once Upon Time in Hollywood could have used some trimming, but I though it is the best film Tarantino has made since Kill Bills and Inglourious Basterds. Django and Hateful Eight just felt too ”Tarantino-esque” and weren’t anything special.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Spoiler: After one viewing

Tarantino is making a movie with small talk again that he wishes could be possibly profound. He actually is showing taste here by not showing and profiting off Sharon Tate’s murder, unless you agree that people will go to see the movie hoping to see Sharon Tate be murdered? It’s a movie about two human underdog folks in the film business, one a star and one a stuntman. The film is simply about their friendship. It’s also a tribute to a more innocent time. It’s safe to say the world changed and the Flower Power era ended with Charles Manson. They didn’t even need to put him in the movie. So the movie ends up being a riddle as it does not show what you thought you would see; including a pit bull as the unexpected hero. There is maybe no profound message other than seeing the times and experiencing the late 1960s politeness. Tarantino is remembering and reintroducing the Midwestern accent and manors from the time, as no one was from California in 1969, but from the Midwest. If you liked the characters then you would like the movie regardless of plot. His movies have plots which are subservient to the characters. Meaning the plots turn only to make the characters better, and there is a story somewhere.

I’ve never liked Tarantino movies on the first watch pretty much? To me the characters almost start to become real after repeated movie views, like real people after spending more time watching them.

It turns out that much of his film ideas actually revolve around mood, or music. That’s one reason why many folks somehow get the film/music connection that he is striving for.

The other part of understanding his movies better comes from knowing that in reality he is making a reference to other movies he has seen; with much of them being low cost 1970s “B” movies. That style of movie had a black humor that Tarantino has springboarded off to enter his style of film expression. Though his humor is easier than some movies to “get”.

If you don’t get his humor the movies can come off wrong, sick and heavy! Much of his charm comes from a person who was basically that kid in school with a bad or sick sense of humor. Many tolerated that person in school though a few loved them. Here we have the same individual given the learned ability to tell stories and create characters. So now that style of individual has better tools to express their ideas. It’s just that somehow Tarantino now as a filmmaker can create these alternate realities which have just as much character as the characters.

 

[phonomat]

I loved Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Just a pleasure to watch, felt very effortless, casual and leisurely to me, like Tarantino entering his "old master" era or something.
8/10, will definitely watch again.

 

[tdockweiler]

The Last Black Man in San Francisco - 5/10

One of the most bizarre movies I've seen in a long time.
The movie is ruined by it's extremely bad dialogue that makes most of it's characters seem very unrealistic.
It actually made me think the two main characters were mentally ill.
After every scene my reaction was mostly "What the....?"
I seriously cannot understand how it's possible to come up with such badly written dialogue. Maybe they did not have a script for the movie?
They even possibly have the record for the most uses of the N-word in a movie. Doesn't bother me, but it just felt like bad writing again.

This is yet another of those movies that critics loved and I disliked. It's one of the highest rated movies of 2019 on Rottentomatoes.
I'm wondering if the critics and I had seen the same movie?! I don't understand the love for this movie.
I guess the best thing about this would be the cinematography. That would get more of a 9/10.
Yet another of those films where you're at the end and thinking "What the heck did I just watch?".
I guess this one did make me think a LOT after seeing it. When I woke up I was still thinking about it.

PS somehow this reminded me of an old film called "The Saint of Fort Washington",
That one is also starring Danny Glover and is about two homeless men living in New York City.
I remember really liking that when I saw it maybe 15-20 years ago. I even remember watching it twice in one day.

 

[SilverEars]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - 7.5/10

Surprisingly, I wasn't all that bored throughout the movie. There doesn't seem to be much of a core narrative, but I found the events in the movie pretty random, but engaging enough. I guess Tarantino has some sort of magic he puts into the movie to make mundane stuff engaging. What really got me through it was the great acting and cinematography. I didn't think the story was all that, and I probably didn't get as much out of it as others from that era (or into B moves? I'm not into B movies)? I really don't know what era I must be from to appreciate this movie. I would not watch this again. Once was enough. I'm giving score points for the production, not the story.

Not much of a Tarantino fan. I heard he takes from other movies, but I prefer originality from film makers he takes from..

 

[SilverEars]

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw - 7.5/10

Liked it better than expected. Started off really entertaining, and then 3/4 way in, got uninteresting. Could have been much better. Early action scenes were quite entertaining to watch.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - 7.5/10

Surprisingly, I wasn't all that bored throughout the movie. There doesn't seem to be much of a core narrative, but I found the events in the movie pretty random, but engaging enough. I guess Tarantino has some sort of magic he puts into the movie to make mundane stuff engaging. What really got me through it was the great acting and cinematography. I didn't think the story was all that, and I probably didn't get as much out of it as others from that era (or into B moves? I'm not into B movies)? I really don't know what era I must be from to appreciate this movie. I would not watch this again. Once was enough. I'm giving score points for the production, not the story.

Not much of a Tarantino fan. I heard he takes from other movies, but I prefer originality from film makers he takes from..

The “era” you speak of IS maybe a big deal for some. And.....when you study the movie a lot of effort was put into it all being era correct. So yes, people who were there are lived 1969 will get a different kick out of the film.

 

[SilverEars]

The “era” you speak of IS maybe a big deal for some. And.....when you study the movie a lot of effort was put into it all being era correct. So yes, people who were there are lived 1969 will get a different kick out of the film.

So, you mean people who lived in Hollywood in that era? I had to give a lot of credit to the production as the film does seem like details from the era was paid attention to, although I'm really not the person to confirm them as that era isn't a big deal to me. I didn't live in Hollywood during those times.

Can't say if there are any other movies I like from that era other than Stanley Kubrick stuff.

 

[Redcarmoose]

So, you mean people who lived in Hollywood in that era? I had to give a lot of credit to the production as the film does seem like details from the era was paid attention to, although I'm really not the person to confirm them as that era isn't a big deal to me. I didn't live in Hollywood during those times.

Can't say if there are any other movies I like from that era other than Stanley Kubrick stuff.

No I mean basically people who were alive and remember 1969. I was in first grade, and lived in Southern California. Interestingly there are movies from the era (made in 1969) that also capture the era. Maybe for Tarantino it’s an escape too. In the movie he goes and has era style movie posters made, fills the movie with KHJ radio segments and popular music from the era. There is also a lot of culture from the times that obviously was not centered on that potentially could have been. Remember it was July of 1969 when the US walked on the moon, basically the exact time the movie is set in. But somehow Tarantino is attempting to make likable and cool characters, in a way they are like comic book characters.....and recreating the era of the late 1960s as a special unique time in history.

But it’s true, how many movies made in 1969 or later which actually center on Hollywood? Or movies which center on Southern California in that time? One I can think of is Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls. But I’ve never thought about it as a subject. There must be more.

 

[Redcarmoose]

1970 production:
A star-struck all-girl band gets caught up in the pill-popping, sex-crazed night whirl of Hollywood, in Russ Meyer's camp classic.

 

[SilverEars]

No I mean basically people who were alive and remember 1969. I was in first grade, and lived in Southern California. Interestingly there are movies from the era (made in 1969) that also capture the era. Maybe for Tarantino it’s an escape too. In the movie he goes and has era style movie posters made, fills the movie with KHJ radio segments and popular music from the era. There is also a lot of culture from the times that obviously was not centered on that potentially could have been. Remember it was July of 1969 when the US walked on the moon, basically the exact time the movie is set in. But somehow Tarantino is attempting to make likable and cool characters, in a way they are like comic book characters.....and recreating the era of the late 1960s as a special unique time in history.

But it’s true, how many movies made in 1969 or later which actually center on Hollywood? Or movies which center on Southern California in that time? One I can think of is Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls. But I’ve never thought about it as a subject. There must be more.

Ok, Moon landing was a big deal (huge) and so was the vietnam war. Transformation from sexual conservatism to more liberal views happened during those times, so yes there was quite a revolution happened in those times. Culture went though quite a bit of a transformation during these times. Just that movies from this era isn't what I think of, but some of it has to do with me not being from that era. This movie isn't about that though.

Tarantino's movies do have that comic book character feel. I found Bong Joon Ho's films also do as well. Characters don't have complete realism to them, but a bit of comic side to them. I know Guy Ritchie's early films had that to a more extreme level (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). I think it's the way he expresses the characters makes the scene more interesting than whats going on not being all that significant, at least with this movie. My favorite Tarantino has to go with Pulp Fiction, dialogs were great, especially the 'Royale With Cheese' scene. lol. That's the kind of stuff Tarantino excels at.

What is the significance of this movie centering on Hollywood or whether or not in 1969 did or not? Anyway, there's quite a bit of crappy movies lately with not much quality, and this one does seem a bit original than what's usual blockbusters out there.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Ok, Moon landing was a big deal (huge) and so was the vietnam war. Transformation from sexual conservatism to more liberal views happened during those times, so yes there was quite a revolution happened in those times. Culture went though quite a bit of a transformation during these times. Just that movies from this era isn't what I think of, but some of it has to do with me not being from that era. This movie isn't about that though.

Tarantino's movies do have that comic book character feel. I found Bong Joon Ho's films also do as well. Characters don't have complete realism to them, but a bit of comic side to them. I know Guy Ritchie's early films had that to a more extreme level (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). I think it's the way he expresses the characters makes the scene more interesting than whats going on not being all that significant, at least with this movie. My favorite Tarantino has to go with Pulp Fiction, dialogs were great, especially the 'Royale With Cheese' scene. lol. That's the kind of stuff Tarantino excels at.

What is the significance of this movie centering on Hollywood or whether or not in 1969 did or not? Anyway, there's quite a bit of crappy movies lately with not much quality, and this one does seem a bit original than what's usual blockbusters out there.

In many ways taking apart Tarantino’s ideas leaves nothing. Why he chose the time and place was related to the end of an era....maybe? Of course those are my own interjections. Hollywood probably as it’s a tribute to Tarantino’s love for the place. So I guess I feel he loves both 1969 and Hollywood. He’s at the position in life where he can basically do what he wants, and get away with it. The thing is I never thought of it but how many of his movies are in the past? Basically......Inglorious Bastards has been in the past and every movie since (4)......and the 6 before........ present-day? At least that’s how I figure it? So he has only gone into history with the last 4 movies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Tarantino_filmography

 

[Redcarmoose]

Ok, Moon landing was a big deal (huge) and so was the vietnam war. Transformation from sexual conservatism to more liberal views happened during those times, so yes there was quite a revolution happened in those times. Culture went though quite a bit of a transformation during these times. Just that movies from this era isn't what I think of, but some of it has to do with me not being from that era. This movie isn't about that though.

Tarantino's movies do have that comic book character feel. I found Bong Joon Ho's films also do as well. Characters don't have complete realism to them, but a bit of comic side to them. I know Guy Ritchie's early films had that to a more extreme level (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels). I think it's the way he expresses the characters makes the scene more interesting than whats going on not being all that significant, at least with this movie. My favorite Tarantino has to go with Pulp Fiction, dialogs were great, especially the 'Royale With Cheese' scene. lol. That's the kind of stuff Tarantino excels at.

What is the significance of this movie centering on Hollywood or whether or not in 1969 did or not? Anyway, there's quite a bit of crappy movies lately with not much quality, and this one does seem a bit original than what's usual blockbusters out there.

My father walked out of the theater at that point. Which is a perfect example of how incredibly violent Tarantino can be in his movies, but people desensitized don’t notice it.

But maybe he’s the best with that style, you know..........guns accidentally going off randomly?