I walked out of Once Upon a Time In Hollywood

I went to see Tarantino’s new movie “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” today with my mother. We ended up walking out of it a bit more than halfway through and getting our money back. I’m not against Quentin Tarantino either. I mean,I loved me some “Jackie Brown”. But this was horrible! It was meandering as fuck, to the point that any momentum the story built was ruined by the next random scene, usually with Leonardo DiCaprio being a sad cowboy, of boredom, confusion, and trite or no dialogue. It was distasteful too. It did not pay the proper respect to the source material of Sharon Tate’s brutal murder by members of the Manson family. It made fun of Tate and Bruce Lee who both can’t exactly defend themselves now to say the least. It did not make good use of the cast. Al Pacino was in it for all of 2 minutes. Most of all it was so slow! I kept thinking it was going to pick up, but it never did. WTF?

The only good thing it had going for it was the ‘60s setting and the music. But that was just not enough. Why is this movie getting good reviews? It was almost as bad as Midsommar! Does anyone else feel this way about it? Did you like it? Or did you feel duped like I did?

I haven’t seen it but I’ve been curious about it. Tarantino is really hit and miss for me. Jackie Brown is one of my all time favorite movies and I thought Inglorious Basterds was great while Django Unchained dissapointed me and I absolutely despised Kill Bill 1 & 2.

I’ve heard it’s more in line with Jackie Brown which is why I’m interested to see it.

They actually gave you your money back? Back when I used to work in a theater we did not give money back based on the quality of the movie itself as we weren't actually responsible for that - only for technical issues.

I agree it saunters around in the first hour, but I found it super well done. It picks up, but it is generally a leisurely stroll of a movie. I thought it was great, but totally understand the criticism.

I’ll add that I got my money back when I walked out of Guardians of the Galaxy. There were no 2D showings, so we said “fuck it” and went with 3D IMAX. It was my first 3D movie since the early 90s, and unsurprisingly, it’s still a shit technology.

We got a refund, grabbed some dinner, and caught a 2D showing on a DLP screen instead.

I’m glad 3D is at the point where I can catch a 2D IMAX movie from directors beside Chris Nolan...

@farleyslundgren: Jackie Brown might be my least favorite of his films. It’s good, but I much prefer the other films you cited.

That said, I both really enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and came away finding it closer to Jackie Brown than his other films.

It’s slow, but I very much enjoyed it. I went into it expecting something that I didn’t get, but what I got, I liked.

Why is this movie getting good reviews?

reading some positive reviews might give you an idea.

I actually quite enjoyed it. It was hazy as hell and made me feel like I was high even though I've been sober for nearly four years. Shame you didn't like it!

Lol.

I was underwhelmed. Jackie Brown is one of my favs of QT's and I love showbiz movies so I was quite excited for this one. I just thought it lack QT's signature fun. It had it's moments and I don't think it's a bad movie by any means. It's just, after being disappointed by The Hateful Eight, I was hoping to like this one a lot more.

That said, you should've stayed 'til the end. As a Chinese dude, not sure how to feel about Bruce Lee being reduced to a joke but I thought it was sweet on Sharon Tate. A feel-good revision of history that ended the movie on a good note.

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Kill Bill Vol. 1
3. Jackie Brown
4. Reservoir Dogs
5. Django Unchained
6. Natural Born Killers*
7. True Romance*
8. Inglorious Bastards
9. Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood
10. Death Proof
11. Kill Bill Vol. 2
12. The Hateful Eight

@liquiddragon: Yeah, I don’t feel anyone was really disrespected, aside from maybe those three Manson kids...but fuck them anyhow.

You mentioned Tate, but even Bruce Lee...(spoilers ahead)....

I don't think I've ever enjoyed a Tarantino film. He is so overblown and over-hyped, so are his films. He also seems like one of the worst humans.

Cool dude

He made my favorite film of all time (that isn't Lord of The Rings, obviously) in Pulp Fiction so I'll give anything of his a go!

@nutter: That’s a kind way of looking at. ? For me, it’s not about winning or losing a fight really. It was more that, in his major scene, he is portrayed as a total ass.

@inevpatoria:

Oh I missed that part. Oof.

@liquiddragon: I just kinda saw it as stunt people hanging out and Bruce Lee being WAY into something he spent his life pursuing. So, I didn’t see him as an ass so much as just dedicated and interested.

I looked at a couple of clips, and I guess the whole “I can’t fight you as I’m a registered lethal weapon” is kinda a jackass thing to say. I’ll have to watch again when this starts streaming and give him some more thought.

I’m curious as to Tarantino’s intent as well as how people will generally view this scene over time...

I can't say the trailers have particularly moved me one way or the other but I loved 4 of the 5 Tarantino moves I've seen so I will almost certainly give it a watch when it comes out on streaming/blu-ray.

I love Tarantino and I'd probably rank this as his worst movie. I'm going to see it a second time on $5 Tuesday to confirm but outside of a couple select scenes (including the ending, which - I'd say predictably - played all the same notes as Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained and still worked 100%) it was just a disengaging slog. It was one of those movies where I like everything about it except that it doesn't feel like it's going anywhere, to the point it's a nearly 3 hour movie yet I was surprised when it was over, like there was more movie on the horizon.

This was the closest a Tarantino movie has come to actually unlikable for me, so I'm very curious to see it a second time since, despite the fun of being surprised by his scripts is a lot of the draw to his films' theatrical releases, what's enduring about his movies are just how enjoyable they are when you know what's coming. His filmography is one of the most rewatchable ever IMO, so I'm crossing my fingers some of the layers of this movie peel back on second showing.

@nutter: Well it's a good scene. It's supposed to be comedic and I think it succeeds on being funny. I think he was a bit of a blowhard so there is some truth in the portrayal. He's just the butt of the joke and it just so happens that he's also the only notable Asian presence in the film. I'm not trying to make a stink about it but I think it's natural that it stings a little. I'll get over it and it's certainly not why I think the movie didn't really click with me.

It all comes together in tbe last 30 minutes. I was like "wtf is this movie?" But after the ending i loved it and cant wait to watch it again when it comes out.

Wiki summary seems a bit disjointed, but is it accurate to say that it is just the bog standard Tarantino "historical" flick?

Lots of "cool" people having fauxlisophical conversations. Occasional comeuppance to an over the top "idiot". And alternate history where the bad guys are stopped with over the top bloodshed?

@liquiddragon: I can’t argue with any of that. Well put. Thanks for giving me another point of view to consider.

I've not seen the film that's the subject of this thread, but I haven't enjoyed a Tarantino movie since Pulp Fiction, and Reservoir dogs. After so many disappointments, I don't bother checking his movies out any more.

Disliked the gruesome scenes which were in there for almost no reason. Not saying the gruesomeness shouldn't be there, it was just too much and seemed to work in favor of shock effect to boost the entertainment factor. 5/10 at best.

And I'm a Tarantino fan.

I kind of loved it. It's my understanding from my Asian friend when I was griping to him about the treatment of Bruce Lee that Bruce was actually a well known asshole and show boat. And according to people who knew and loved him, it was a pretty accurate portrayal.

Gotta disagree about people saying the gruesome violence was there for no reason, or the Tate scenes of her at the cinema had no purpose. The entire point of the movie is making you like these characters, and then slowly marching you towards the dread of the real world Tate murder. The ending with our heroes dispatching the Manson family is supposed to be a hilarious and extremely over the top and cathartic "release" for the audience, because you're supposed to spend the entire movie going "oh God oh God poor Sharon got slaughtered and her baby cut out of her womb when she was eight months pregnant, oh God she begged for her life oh man I don't want to see this..." And then instead of hitting you with the horror you're dreading he dispatches those Manson assholes like the scum they are. The movie almost refuses to mystify them cool or dangerous or interesting which I adore. It's a giant cultural middle finger to the entire family. Pitt literally cracks a joke at the real life "I'm the devil" line.

I like the reading that Dalton's Caleb villain character is what people expected QT's Manson to be. A mystified very talky and showy big bad. When in reality QT gives Manson literally one scene, and he's just sort of a creepy weirdo.

Movie Theatre giving you money back for walking out after seeing an hour and a half of the movie means that you were probably incredibly rude to the movie theatre staff.

@turboman: Seriously. It's such an absurd sense of entitlement to think that you deserve your money back, simply because you didn't enjoy a movie. When you buy a ticket to see a movie, you've bought the right to watch the movie, not a guarantee to a movie you'll enjoy. Unless the projector, audio, or air conditioning stops working during the movie, you've got no ground to stand on in requesting a refund.

In regard to the movie itself, I definitely came out with mixed feelings. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it, but apart from the gratuitous foot shots, it didn't really feel like a Tarantino movie until the last half hour or so. I think I finally understand how others feel about The Hateful Eight, which is actually one of my favorites of Tarantino's.

I like the Hateful Eight, but Tarantino movies have never done anything for me. I always get the feeling he is a guy that has bought inot the BS that people keep telling him about his movies.

The messing around with historical events/people (the Inglorious Bastards ending had me throwing something at my tv) I do find infuriating, particularly touchstone events like the Tate-LaBianca slayings and the crazy stuff that went on around the Manson murders.

@sarnecki: Totally with you on the use of violence. I had the exact same read while watching the film.

I appreciate everyone’s opinion. It sounds like it picks up in the end. So, that’s good. Maybe, I’ll rent it when it comes to streaming services and catch the second half. I’m reluctant to see how they portrayed the brutal murder of Sharon Tate, but seeing the Manson family get their “comeuppance” at the very end in the style of how they did it in Inglorious Bastards sounds worth a watch. The biggest problem with the movie is that, just like Half Life 2, it had major pacing problems.

Also, @turboman: @jacksmedulla: movie tickets don’t cost $7.00 anymore. My family is working class and we don’t own property, so $30 is a lot of money for us. So, if a movie is egregious enough for you that you have to have to walk out halfway through it, I recommend that anyone in my financial situation should ask for their money back. Just ask though, don’t demand it or be rude. They don’t have to give it back. I just mentioned to the usher at the customer service desk that I really wasn’t enjoying the movie that was going on and would it be possible to get my money back. She responded that they wanted us to enjoy their movies and being that we walked out long before the end of the movie (there was still one and a half hours left) she didn’t see a problem with refunding me my money. She just had to authorize it with a manager. So, she called her manager and he said that it was fine. They were very friendly and even said that we were doing the right thing walking out and asking if we could have our money back if we weren’t enjoying the movie. They said it would be much worse if we had sat through the entire movie and came out very unsatisfied of a movie with such high reviews. Also, they gave refunds to the other people that walked out of the movie at the same time as us. It really wasn’t a problem. All you can do is ask and I seldom walk out of movies anyway.

Tarantino defended Roman Polanski on Howard Stern's show. He basically implied the 13 year old girl wasn't raped. He's a real POS in my opinion.

@fasterblaster: Yeah and Polanski drugged her before he forcibly had sex with her too. If that’s not rape, then I don’t know what is. This is even besides the obvious fact that little 13 year old girls don’t have sex! I’m talking to you Tarantino!

A shit ton of Hollywood stars signed the Roman Polanski petition defending him and pretty much everyone clapped for him at the Academy Awards in 2003 and some even gave him a standing ovation.

They did that for a literal child rapist, think about that. Hollywood is rotten to the core. Not to undermine the horrible things Tarantino said, I just want to point out how common and seemingly normalized the Polanski defending in Hollywood was/is. It’s crazy.

@fasterblaster: @max_cherry:

I remember than interview. I’ll still watch a Tarantino movie as I think people are entitled to say stupid shit. I refuse to watch Polanski films, even though I’m sure I’d love Chinatown, as I can’t go so far as to separate the director from the man who drugged and anally raped a child in a hot tub.

And yeah, the Hollywood folks defending him...it’s gross.

At the risk of going too far down this rabbit hole, I think I soured on Tarantino, the person, after the New York Times story in which Uma Thurman recounted a story from the set of Kill Bill--stating she was coerced into driving an unsafe vehicle on an unsafe road at unsafe conditions. She pleaded for a professional stunt driver to operate the vehicle, particularly because the shot captured the back of her head. Tarantino refused. And Thurman, behind the wheel of the vehicle, lost control during the shoot and crashed into a tree at 40 mph.

Tarantino owned up to the decision and apologized for its aftermath, an apology that Thurman publicly accepted. But it still put a blemish on my understanding of Tarantino's personal character.

It doesn't undermine his skill as a filmmaker or discredit his legacy of influence on an entire generation. And yet there's a persistent sense--even now with the controversy surrounding his depiction of Bruce Lee--that he shoulders an air of reverence for his own vision that supersedes the respect he has for his fellow human.

Despite being a pretty big Tarantino fan, I'm waiting for video on this one. Almost 3 hours in a theater is just too much. I want to be able to sit on my couch and pause.

I find the best movies sit in the 30-70% range, movies with fantastic reviews are usually terrible.

@cikame: I tend not to trust critics too much, but I’ll read their takes after seeing a film just to bounce my ideas off of theirs. Aggregator sites abstract things enough where trusting them to really say anything meaningful is a challenge.

I feel that the worst aggregator site is Rotten Tomatoes. I HATE Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer. I feel the scale leans in the favor of broad, lowest common denominator films and that its popularity can only hurt funding for unique or challenging films. It’s rewarding films to be just good enough while not challenging anyone enough to offend their sensibilities.

I actually think that’s what’s so wonderful about the Russo Brothers’ Marvel films. They’re so damned broad, but also legitimately fun, funny, sad, thoughtful (enough), full of action, drama, and anything else you’d want. They’re making super broad films for the world, and they’re doing it well. It’s rare and fantastic.

As far as the "distasteful" nature of Sharon Tate's character, you should really see the end of the movie.

I completely disagree with this take after my second viewing, and realize I'd had maybe a bit too much to drink the first night I saw it. When the movie started jumping around in time I had just really lost track of it, and there were large blank spots in my memory during the middle third that really put the movie in better perspective for me. Really, I thought the whole thing was kind of magical that second time, and I basically feel the complete opposite about it as I did the first time. It's just a wonder to watch and take in, especially at a time when this kind of money just doesn't get spent on movies this personal, everything is either genre or art house. Alongside Inglorious Basterds this is a truly timeless movie that feels like it could have been made at any point in movie history, but could've only been made by the person who made it.

I might go see it a third time before it's out of theaters; the last movie I wanted to see three times in a theater was Phantom Thread.

Also, I don't think people who see the Bruce Lee portrayal as negative, or even honest, are really paying attention to the movie or the director's actual feelings on the subject. He loves Bruce Lee and martial arts cinema in general, but does Cliff Burton? The character is never presented as a reliable narrator, and it's made abundantly clear that if Leo's character is fearful for his future, Cliff is resigned to his insignificance. In that light, us seeing that moment through Cliff's lens to me reads as a fantasy to the point it may not even be how that fight "actually" occurred, accepting that Cliff is not a real person and Bruce is and that this whole movie is a revenge fantasy for a crime that, in its universe, doesn't actually happen anyway.

Contrast the Bruce portrayed in Cliff's memory of him with the Bruce we see "in the real world" playfully training Sharon and generally being just a cool karate dude and I think you get a clearer picture as well. If you walk away from that scene thinking "there's no way Cliff Booth beats Bruce Lee in a street fight" (which, by the way, he also didn't do, even if the car moment is the wow moment of the scene) I'd argue it's entirely possible that Bruce Lee kicked his ass in the "actual" fight depending on how much you choose to believe what we see on the screen versus what we know about those two characters.

I enjoyed it, overall it was a nice and welcome break what seems like an endless stream of predictable superhero movies. The dynamic between Brad Pitt's and Leonardo DiCaprio's character was great. The film was never intended to be historically accurate.

midsommar was fun

“...Cliff Burton...”

Hang on...the main character’s name is Cliff Burton?

That’s bullshit. That name is taken, man.

I really liked it. Turns out that different people have different tastes. It fits very much in the 'historical' nature of his recent works (Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained)

I quite enjoyed this movie. The reason why some of people didn't like it is they don't understand the 60s atmosphere in Hollywood, the context of the story, they even don't know who Charles Manson is! So maybe you didn't like it too

@nutter: Chinatown is rough, even before knowing about Polanski's predilections. It essentially ends with a man who raped his own daughter, getting away scot free. It does not leave you feeling very good about the world.

Just saw this in theaters and I really enjoyed it. Was a little worried in the beginning that it’s a bit over indulgent and the weird fee fetishization.. but it picks up and boy that finale.