Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Teaser Trailer Released!

I Saw the film lastnight in 35mm at the local Alamo Drafthouse here in Denver. I will say that by far he did not in anyway trump pulp fiction in my mind nor Jackie Brown which are my two favorites of his. I will say however that it was by far his tamest film in terms of violence since Jackie Brown. The ending was expected from me so I guess it wasnt as much of a shock to me as how the rest of the audience was reacting.. at this point QT has a formula down which if you really follow it, he doesnt really surprise anymore. I'd say Brad Pitt was by far the shinning star in this film.. Leo did good too but not as good as brad. Cinematography was excellent per usual in a QT film and the set design was outstanding! I'm interested to see if QT actually does release a longer cut to this as hes promised that in the past with films like Kill Bill and its never happened.. for the USA anyway. All in all I think it was a solid film but in no way his strongest film and honestly to some degree I feel like its being hyped to hell. I give it a 9/10.
 
Mike Krumlauf said:
All in all I think it was a solid film but in no way his strongest film and honestly to some degree I feel like its being hyped to hell. I give it a 9/10.
Click to expand...

I like that a good film maker can get “not his best” but still make a nice film. Spielberg comes to mind.

Kubrick, wasn’t his best film, i give it eh.... 9.99999999/10
 
James0b57 said:
If that is a movie that QT really wanted to make, he was smart not to make it his last. And now expectations are low for the tenth?

Wish this wasn’t as lame as it sounds. Was hoping for at least Hateful 8 level film making. It is sounding more like a netflix original
Click to expand...

No no no.. its better than netflix lol... this is meant to be seen in the cinema on a film print.
 
Looks like even from the script they knew what kind of film it was going to be, and sounds exactly like what you guys are saying:

“Tarantino: One of the first people to read the script was my first AD, Bill Clark. … He came down to the house to read it and said, ‘Okay, so this is number nine, huh?’ So he goes out by the pool, and he reads it, and he goes, ‘Damn, number nine is like all eight of [your movies] put together.’ ”
 
I don't know, honestly there are large swatches of this film where I feel like it's missing the Tarantino trademarks. What I really miss is the protracted dialogue scenes that invite multiple viewings to truly appreciate the structure, build and rhythm that he has a knack for. Like the opening Christopher Weitz scene in "Inglorious Bastards", or the delightful banter between Travolta and Jackson in "Pulp Fiction". In a way, this film revolves more around the non-verbal (Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate is mostly seen and not heard, and Brad's Cliff is often traveling in silence) which is not so Tarantino-esque to me.
 
Oh interesting.

Cat got his tongue finally?

Lost in the sauce?

Or a contrast to the intense amount of dialogue in 8?
 
There was also not a single n-word. Actually, there were no black characters in this either, which I guess accounts for that.
 
Batutta said:
There was also not a single n-word. Actually, there were no black characters in this either, which I guess accounts for that.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly happy he cooled it down with the N word. I get films like Django it was just the times, that I understand but I feel like he always was a bit to liberal with that word, mostly for comedic effect. He's not Spike Lee you know? the "dead ***** storage" line in pulp always makes me cringe.. its not funny and the fact QT says it himself in the film just makes his character look blatantly racist.. idk.. i'll shutup :b
 
Also side note.. anyone catch how the angles he shot interior of the car was very much like Kill Bill 2? I did see visual homages to most of his films in this one... honestly, if he doesn't make #10 and ends on this i'm okay with that.

One thing I notice with a lot of A List filmmakers is they just dont know when to quit and pass the baton to the next generation and appreciate the legacy they made for themselves (ironic words given the partial plot of this film). Its part of why i admire John Hughes as much as I did.. He was one of the most successful filmmakers of his generation, 1990 the year i was born (sorry if i made anyone feel old :b) he was the 10th most powerful person in hollywood (thank home alone for that).. 1994 he quits, never directs again and moves out of LA back to Chicago.. he made a name for himself and a crap ton of money, he realized family was more important and bowed out.. more filmmakers need to do this i feel in hollywood. idk..
 
I watched that at a cinema yesterday with my mate. He was asking me during screening like 4 or 5 times:
"Don't you think it's too dark!?"
And I was like... "well how to tell you... it's a new hip style nowadays".
I wanted to tell him that underexposed is a new teal and orange but he wouldn't understand ;)


My super short review:
- cinematography great
- scenography great
- BP and LdC acting great
- should be cut shorter, some scenes were unnecessarily long
 
Last edited:
alohype said:
I watched that at a cinema yesterday with my mate. He was asking me during screening like 4 or 5 times:
"Don't you think it's too dark!?"
And I was like... "well how to tell you... it's a new hip style nowadays".
I wanted to tell him that underexposed is a new teal and orange but he wouldn't understand ;)


My super short review:
- cinematography great
- scenography great
- BP and LdC acting great
- should be cut shorter, some scenes were unnecessarily long
Click to expand...

I don't know where you saw it, but don't completely discount the possibility that it was projected too dark - tons of movie theaters are miscalibrated like that and show films too dark. Honestly it's one of the big downsides to going to a theater to see a film.
 
I would have to agree, sounds like a projection issue. I saw it in 70mm and again in digital projection and can't say that I thought any of it was notably dark, especially in the "trendy" way you refer to! But I am fortunate to be able to see films at quality theatres in Los Angeles that maintain proper standards for their screen brightness.
 
OldCorpse said:
I don't know where you saw it, but don't completely discount the possibility that it was projected too dark - tons of movie theaters are miscalibrated like that and show films too dark. Honestly it's one of the big downsides to going to a theater to see a film.
Click to expand...

This is so horribly ironic.
 
Actually I found a couple scenes dark, rest were fine. 'Dark' ones kind of just 'realistic' lighting I guess.

As for the movie. Thought it wasn't bad but definitely has the least replay value of any of his movies by a long shot. Doubt I'll watch it again. I've read and watched a bit about the Manson murders so I fell like I would have really got a good bit more from the film than those that hadn't. In fact if you don't know anything about the murders check out a wiki or something before seeing this.

DiCaprio has some great comedic moments like in Wolf of Wallstreet.

3/5
 
Last edited:
I just saw it last night. And on the whole, I really quite liked it.

They could have comfortably cut 30 minutes of the film by just shortening the driving shots (not even cutting them, just shortening the over long ones). They pulled me out of the film a couple of times, but ultimately I kind of accepted that Tarantino was trying to soak me in the late sixties, and I was okay with that.

Oddly too, for a filmmaker who so often works in chapters, the film did feel more disjointed to me than any of his previous efforts, with some overly overt and sometimes clunky setups that would then lead in to the flashbacks.

But when it worked (which was still the bulk of the film IMO), it had that Tarantino magic that I love. The Bruce Lee bit, Cliff's visit to the ranch, Rick's chat with the little girl, Sharon soaking in her movie, the bonkers ending. Some really glorious moments of motion picture.

Bob Richardson did his usual glorious work. The omnipotent overhead camerawork may be some of his finest yet, and the dread he built up in the sunny ranch scene, and Tex's exhilarating ride on the horse were brilliant. The only aspect I could grip at, was the lack of period-appropriate lighting on the TV scenes, that broke the 4th wall a little for me.

The art dept. it's hard to say enough about - probably the MVPs on this one.

And the whole cast. Not a weak link anywhere.

I dug it. If they release a 4 hour bluray... I suspect I'll watch it happily.
 
Grug said:
And the whole cast. Not a weak link anywhere.
Click to expand...
One actor stood out as bad to me, the girl that's giving the play-by-play as Cliff walks up toward the house at the ranch. His 'love interest' was really great though.
 
tmnt said:
One actor stood out as bad to me, the girl that's giving the play-by-play as Cliff walks up toward the house at the ranch. His 'love interest' was really great though.
Click to expand...

Margaret Qualley(!) Isn't she fantastic?! I first saw her in this crazy cool ad/music video that Spike Jonze did, and have been wanting to see more from her since:

 
Grug said:
Margaret Qualley(!) Isn't she fantastic?! I first saw her in this crazy cool ad/music video that Spike Jonze did, and have been wanting to see more from her since:

Click to expand...
Holy moly, that's pretty cool and not to typecast the young lady but if they ever want to remake Natural Born Killers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top