What did you make of it?

I found it horrifically dull. But I fully accept that I am not a fan of the Hollywood scene and wasn't alive in the 60's nor have I watched many 60's shows so the whole nostalgia thing was lost for me. I appreciated the acting but generally didn't give a fuck about either Cliff or Dalton and the Manson family stuff felt a bit contrived.
I can see the appeal of the film but I still genuinely think a substantial amount of people claiming to enjoy it are just posturing in an attempt to give off the impression that they 'understand' film on a deeper level than the average person.

Cliff Booth as a character is up there with Hans Landa and Jules Winnfield

I actually can't stand this faggot in real life, life was better when I didn't know the horseshit political opinions of the hollywood actors

Well-made, well-acted, beautiful, nice concept, indescribably boring.

girl screaming like a retard ruined the end

Its a good movie but I don't see the justification for some of the scenes. Some scenes (like Tate going to movies, Tate's party going to mexican restaurant, Cliff going to the movie ranch where the hippies live) don't add much to the movie. The movie could easily be shortened from 2h 45minutes to 2h.

It wasn't boring tho. Its better than Kill Bills and Reservoir dogs but of course worse that Pulp fiction.

Attached: possu istuu.jpg (807x749, 48K)

"Is everyone okay?"

"Yeah, apart from the fucking hippies."

I think it would have been a much stronger movie if it didn't spend so much time on superfluous Sharon Tate moments and the masturbatory alternative history ending was incredibly dumb. Had he instead focused on DiCaprio's internal struggle of realizing how he's on the verge of officially being an alcoholic hasbeen and made the core theme how Hollywood chews people up and spits them out when they're expired their hot period, it might have been interesting. Now it's just entertaining fluff, because he knows how to write good dialogue so you never got bored when the movie decides to meander around.

It had its moments but it was Tarantino at his most arrogantly self-indulgent and it's easily his worst movie. He clearly loves the time period but it lacks the focus of his other movies. One has to wonder why he even bothered to cut Tim Roth out of the movie if this is supposed to be a tighter cut.

Just saw this three hours ago. Me and my friend are big tarantino fans and we left disappointed. It's better than The Hateful Eight, but not better than Pulp, Dogs, Django, Inglorious, hell even From Dusk till Dawn. It's weirdly unique but the ending didn't really pay off for me. I wish the film took a turn when the manson children were introduced half way through, I would've liked for him to introduce manson as a character. It got really sinister at the ranch and then went nowhere for another hour. I felt like the Sharon Tate story line didn't go anywhere and I didn't care for her as a character. They were neighbours at the start of the film, for some reason it took him 2 hours and 45 minutes just to introduce them? I mean I understand why because he finally met her which meant he could possibly star in a big hollywood production, but the film went on for so long, it could've easily been a 1:45, 2 hr film instead of nearly three, there was so much filler.

Brad Pitt was the highlight of the film with DiCaprio 2nd and Pacino 3rd. It's a well made movie, don't get me wrong, but it just didn't appeal to me at all.

I will probably re-watch it in a year or so and see if I change my opinion.

high iq

I left thinking do I just not 'get it?', I felt like I missed out on some deeper meaning but now that I think about it it's just a dull story.

It was good, could’ve been better if you cut out Sharon Tate shit and just made it about Cliff and Rick

>substantial amount of people claiming to enjoy it are just posturing in an attempt to give off the impression that they 'understand' film on a deeper level than the average person.
I enjoy it and think it very very simple film without a deep plot, it was a comedy

i learned that she travelled all the way to meet this guy then married that guy cause she knows when this guy breaks up with her that guy is wating... And that's it.

Also bruce lee was

Attached: sharon-tate-roman-polanski-g.jpg (1825x1217, 407K)

>why was sharon tate even in the movie
>the sharon tate thing like didnt go anywhere
it's a fucking red herring you dumbass zoomers
you're supposed to know that sharon tate gets stab murdered and it's building up to that point by showing her as a sympathetic up and coming actress who gets pregnant and is enjoying her life before tragedy

Attached: 1556740514125.png (474x711, 90K)

>WAAAAAAAAAAH HE SAID THE THING I DONT LIIIIIKE
Seething!
ABSOLUTELY SEETHING

The 70s setting was enjoyable and seemed authentic (although I'm too young to know either way), Pitt and DiCaprio were good, but storywise it was kind of 'meh' and slooow, and him recycling the whole 'alternate history' thing again was lazy.

6/10

So you expect people to read the life of Sharon Tate before going to see the film?

good post

Did anyone have an issue with Damian Lewis playing Steve McQueen? There were like two seconds where he looked like him from a certain angle, kinda, but rest of the time I just kept thinking Lewis was simply too fucking old to play McQueen and it took me out of the picture.

You know they're forced to say that right

>Ywn can a hippie girl in the face
why even live

The fact that you know whay happened to Tate just makes the movie worse, because the twist is dumb and makes the Tate shit all the more pointless.

You really just don't get it, though.

>watching Tarantula films
>not knowing about Tate

The teaser trailer?

That White-boys wil never be able to tarnish Asian manliness.

No, retard. They couldn't show Tate dying, that would get the movie canned, it's a bad image. Instead, she gets to live normally, it's a fairy tale style ending.

Made the right descion to delay the release in Europe by two weeks.

I didn't know anything about the Sharon Tate murders nor do I care about the Hollywood golden age so I just came away with it feeling as if it's made for a very very small and specific group of people that I'm not part of.

> I actually found the end quite touching and very humanistic

You mean the part where Cliff Booth caves that red-head's face in against the wooden furniture? (crucnch-crunch-squish) while his 200-pound Pitbull rips off a teenagers ballsack and eats it for dinner?

I thought so too

>They couldn't show Tate dying, that would get the movie canned, it's a bad image

Staying true to a historical fact is a bad image? Lmao.

You have no context as to why Quentin wanted her to live. You're an idiot.

I HATE that we don't get the same time release.
Missed all the chewing the fat with the first viewers, because I wanted to avoid spoilers.

I was captivated by it, saw it in the UK last night.

>Heh..you just don't get it...

Attached: npc.jpg (630x630, 23K)

I agree, though I enjoyed it more than you. It's a movie that feels like it 'could' be very deep due to the amount of references and prerequisite knowledge required to fully appreciate it, without actually being deep. Maybe the longer version actually is deep, but the cut we saw isn't.

I did as well at first but then you realise it's just for fans of 60's Hollywood and filmmaking.

It's basically a hobbyist film with no real plot or structure (which is fine, it's just not for me.)

It's really the worst thing he ever made. When a movie is said to be a love letter to something there's usually something happening in the movie and the subtext is the hommage. There's nothing here but autistic recreations, cringy attempts at humor and sabotaged plotlines. I love his style most of the time and he proved in the past he could do references, comfy scenes and long dialogues very well, all of it while building a story and some tension. Once upon a time is just lazy and uninspired.

Brad Pitt is killing it though, but his character is wasted too.

So at the end of the movie do those Manson kids go into the wrong house? Because they said they were supposed to go into "???'s old house" (which was where the neighbours Tate/Polanski lived) but instead go into Dalton's house

>where are you going?
>Spahn's Movie Ranch
>You're going to Spahn's Movie Ranch?
>Yes, I'm going by to Spahn's Movie Ranch
>Why are you going to Spahn's Movie Ranch?
>I live there
>You live at Spahn's Movie Ranch?
>Yes, I live at Spahn's Movie Ranch
>Who do you live at Spahn's Movie Ranch with?
>Other girls like me
>You and a bunch of girls like you are living at Spahn's Movie Ranch
>Yes, what's wrong with me and a bunch of girls like me living at Spahn's Movie Ranch
>nothing
Help me out here guys. Was Tortellini trying to subtly foreshadow to the audience that Margaret Qualley's character was in the Manson Family?

Attached: 7838de257b1be3b0-600x338.jpg (600x338, 37K)

I disagree only long enough to say that I thought Death Proof was worse.

Naw bro, it's just a coinky-dink (the dumpster diving was the real foreshadowing anyway).

Visually illiterate. You cannot read of perhaps even watch films in general. Cinematic image juxtapositions you cannot pick up on, like a five year old confused by an adults conversation because he doesn’t understand all the words. Let me break it down for you. The whole movie is wrapped In the sequence which starts with the juxtaposition of Margot Robbie (playing Sharon Tate) watching the actual Sharon Tate on screen in the movie theater. The film is basically about subjectivity, objectivity and the oddness of a creation of a fantasy. Cliff Booth lives in reality, he coasts on it, he rides the waves and nothing can topple him over. Cliff is the loyal supporting squire to Rick Dalton, the famous wealthy knight (or prince). Dalton’s subjective reality is breaking in around him from the objective force of the world. Rick sits in his pool and talks to his tape recorder, he talks to a creation of himself. The film is another loose King Arthurian retelling much like Pulp Fiction was, cowboy stories are already repackaged knights and wizards fantasy tales, so this movie has three layers to comb through. Charles Manson’s family is basically just goblins or mountain bandits that want to destroy Tolkienesq society because they are objectively evil. Every ‘wound’ is the force of the objective world intruding onto your subjective physical body, the gratuitous shots of the hippies ‘wounds’ at the end are clear signs that their subjective creations break way to Cliffs objective force because Cliff submits himself to the objective current of the world unwaveringly, allowing him to actually hold real weight and power in the realm where humans subjective realities co-mingle and clash. The film is actually suprisingly optimistic and I would even say a work of genius, it’s his best filmsincePulp Fiction

Attached: 1520006206661.png (486x443, 29K)

Selfies go in /soc/ bro

>well, I just reject your hypothesis
So now that the dust has settled can we all agree that he was in the wrong here. Sharon Tate is barely in the film, is barely a character and I'd say she was more of a plot device but that would imply the film had a plot.

Attached: 13822840-7059243-image-a-18_1558543833763-620x400.jpg (620x400, 36K)

Maybe if you're making a serious drama piece. But that's not what this movie is, its just tries to be funny and real life violence isn't as funny as movie violence.

Guys like these should stick to capeshit

>Instead, she gets to live normally, it's a fairy tale style ending.
Until she finds her husband with his dick in the ass of a drugged 13 year old.

Wow, another söi reaction wojak your mother must be so proud. Dull, no creativity, no ability to read or think further as a viewer, no imagination, it’s a disgrace to the medium of film (which is the most superior medium OVER the written word btw). Every other medium of art came into its capacity and development solely to be used for the medium of film—The modern ages one sacred gift to you and here you go wasting it. Even the more long written posts I replied was just people whining and explaining what happened and then complaing about it, it’s like going to the movies with your grandma

Attached: 1518294822087.jpg (644x568, 67K)

Go on

Then maybe not tie your entire climax on a stupid alternative history angle.

The entire movie is alternative history mate.

I'm nonwhite, will I enjoy this movie?

cringe and blue pilled
based and redpilled

It's possible, unless your Asian and post on r/asianmasculinity.

the infernal seething from small dicked ping pongs over bruce lee getting his ass handed to him is the gift that keeps on giving

It was a really good movie going experience all the way through, fantastic.

It was really really good. Probably my favorite from him since Jackie Brown or Pulp Fiction. This one actually has some sort of themes that it explores and the characters are interesting. It isn't just DUDE SLAVERY BAD. It's an interesting look into Hollywood at the time where everything was about to change. It's sort of a time capsule. What's interesting is what he does with this. Sharon is more of a symbol of the innocence that was lost. It's nice to see her survive. The thematic implications of the whole film are quite interesting. The film is also based and redpilled and Pitt and DiCaprio are stellar. Also Tarantino doesn't have a cameo which is a big plus.
Well she does have a purpose, symbolic for sure but she is important. If he tried to write dialogue for her it could end up being worse since he would have a hard time not writing his own shit.

Comes out the 18 of September over here, gonna have to wait.

Can a comparison be made with Ave Cesare of the Cohen brothers?

Let’s look at the scene where Cliff and Rick are watching the premier of that one show where he’s blasting those WW2 soldiers with a shotgun in the truck, what do you honestly think is being telegraphed there? It’s meta-commentary almost *slightly* bashing the medium of film. It’s 4th dimensional, like when films depict an audience watching a film in the actual movie in a *slightly* negative light, a sort of biting sarcasm. This is also telegraphed when Quentin tries his hardest to immerse us in the scenes where Rick is acting on set, he films in like it was the actual movie and then abruptly cuts us out of it, like when Deadpool looks at the camera and says poopie cowabunga. I don’t put that much artistic merit in this technique and it is a classic one that goes all the way back to the silents, but it is *entertaining* at least and feels intellectual stimulating. Cowboy stories are by nature Arthurian, so what do you think Quentin is telegraphing when he abruptly cuts us out of the ‘Arthurian’ fantasy tale and intercuts it with aims at a psuedo-real (hyper-real IE symbolic) world that ‘appears’ to try to be ‘mundane’ (slice of life reddit meme) but the movie is literally called Once Upon a Time.... Which brings us back to the scene with Margot Robbie watching Sharon Tate, a fantasy false creation watching an actual real person, except that person is in a film and the fake person is the one watching it.

I have to add that focusing so much on scenes of some movie in the movie was really the best way to annihilate any interest in what was happening. It's an incredibly dumb decision

it's not a documentary.

never going to watch it. hate movies with big star roles who don't fit the characters. I can tell this is one of em. and I dont like pitt

ever just say nothing for a paragraph and a half to strangers on the internet? Jeez.

They are both good and Pitt is especially great in this.

True, it's a creative sad fairytale.

Imagine Margot Robbie giving you a blowjob with those godly lips of hers.

I doubt it. never seen him be anything more than mediocre. That oscar bait one where he age progressed had me laughing. he nearly ruined twelve monkeys. dude doesn't belong in hollywood

I've seen it 3 times, loved it all 3 times. It's the type of movie that lulls you in, you don't feel the length and you can't stop looking at the screen.

The acting is Leo's best, Pitt is excellent, the soundtrack is spot on. I loved the individual plots and how they tied together at the end.

Maybe because I used to live in LA and I know a decent amount about Hollywood of that era I got more of a laugh out of every scene, but based on my friends' reactions the film is enjoyable for someone without that knowledge.

Why are you so butthurt about the alternative history?

Tough shit. He's great in this and so is Leo

You can be a faggot about it all you like but if the shoe fits, you wear it.

I really appreciated Rick and Cliff's friendship, it felt refreshingly uncomplicated
In any other story like this I would imagine their relationship would be a source of contention, like Rick asks Cliff to do a bunch of shit and Cliff slowly builds resentment towards him for being treated like a servant and not getting stunt work, but instead it's just bros helping each other out in a mutually beneficial relationship and it was great to see

more like if the jew cock fits inside his young mouth

The Tree of Life, Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Burn After Reading etc. all good.

how much of a fag do you need to be to dislike brad pitt? literally why and how does a man dislike brad pitt?

pretentious crap I wont watch
dont like westerns
burn after reading he played his dumb self and got shot so I was happy

Jealousy and insecurity because even at 55 he still looks fine as fuck
His performance is Once Upon is fantastic, so is DiCaprio's

I think the more you know the better it gets. I don't know that much but i caught some things, they are pretty obvious if you watch some films, and it was really fun.
You sound retarded.

Im trying to think of a reason for someone to dislike brad pitt other than what you posted and struggle to find one

>he didn't recognize the song playing during the scene

ill tell you in 5-10 years when ill catch it on the tely

That went over my head

One of my guiltiest thoughts is that I'm kind of glad Polanski's child was killed in that carnage.

how about all those niglets he raised. dude comes off as a simp chump

The best post I have seen on this board in years

I'm not American and I definitely wasn't alive in the 60s and I know that Sharon Tate was murdered by the Manson lunatics, it's popular culture at this point even outside of america

>indescribably boring
It was a slow movie but when it ended I was in shock all that time passed. QT is a true master of his craft. A lot of memorable scenes already. Never boring. It kind of feels that nothing happens but your mind is so busy all the time taking in all the details time flies. Good Job. Well deserved praise. I personally could live without all the "stinky feet" shots. But whatever...

He looks nothing like Polanski. His jaw is too well defined and it just takes you out of the movie

>replying to bait

going around and announcing your disliking brad pitt might be an obvious sign of latent homosexual desires, not even meming

its ok to be gay

saddest thing I've read in years.

Anglophiles don't count, uncle Tom.

>a substantial amount of people claiming to enjoy it are just posturing in an attempt to give off the impression that they 'understand' film on a deeper level than the average person
I just found it entertaining. I don't know how Tarantino does it but he can film two hours where basically nothing happens and it's still engaging
Then the hippies getting massacred was just hilarious, partly because of how sudden and out of nowhere it is and how it contrasts with the previous two hours of the movie

you know what that brad pitt guy is nothing compared to me, anonymous shitposter

fuck brad pitt man

Just saw it.
For me it was a very good movie comparing to contemporary kino.
Pure kino.
Tarentino's most unusual movie, but he still signed it with the ending.
And yea, he sure has a foot feetish.

wait he is supposed to play that guy who diddled children? AHAHAHAHAHHA jews are so delusional

but he doesn't play polanski

I just saw it too. I really liked it. Along with Dolor y Gloria and Parasite, my favourite of the year so far.

>wait he is supposed to play that guy who diddled children
no.

You know how sometimes you critique a movie just by looking at some posters? This is one of the few times it doesn't work out

It was good old Hollywood porn but it wasn't a typical Tarantino movie. Whether or not that's good or bad is subjective. After Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, a lot of people were underwhelmed by Jackie Brown. Time has been much kinder to that movie... The same will be true here... I liked it in the here and now.

I saw comments like its boring and without a plot.
You really have to have some prior knowledge about Hollywood.
Going for another watch tommorow.
Do you think he landed a role in a Polansky movie in the future?

I think it is typical Tarantino, only he restrains himself and keeps the over the top violence to the final like 20 minutes
Kill Bill 2 was mostly slow narrative too, this is like Kill Bill 2 but it turns into Kill Bill 1 at the end

You definitely don´t need any special kind of knowledge about that era to enjoy the movie.

Awwww you’ll be okay mate

I would recommend you the pajeet site in which I watched it but they took it down, qo watch in theaters, if you care about movies it's well spend money

My father knew nothing about that, he barely knew who Sharon Tate was and he really liked it.
That would be nice, Tarantino said that Rick would be good in the role that Cassavetes played in Rosemary's Baby but that was before the film.

I dont give a shit. tarantino is a hack. what movies did he plagiarize this time

Thank you. It's just so depressing seeing anons go through a hard time.

This is probably his most original film.

I saw it today with two buddies and one of them apparently didn't know about the whole Manson family and Tate murder thing, he still really liked the movie

I was fully expecting the movie to end with both Sharon Tate AND Dalton and Booth getting murdered and suddenly a dog is feasting on Tex' balls while Cliff annihilates hippie chicks. I don't even care about how the fuck Dalton gets to keep a real, working flamethrower in his house.

Reservoir Dogs and True Romance are his o my good movies

it was shitty. first 3/4ths was just pointless meandering. sharon tate's inclusion in the movie is wasted time and basically just there to troll the audience. even if the trolling was effective, it just means the movie will be much worse on rewatch since you know the sharon tate scenes don't matter.

there's not even really a point or message behind it. leo's character kind of "wins" in the end since he has an in with pulanski now, but he didn't even really do anything to fight of the cultists, so it's not like he's being rewarded for anything. meanwhile brad pitt who actually fought them off is still a broke loser. the best he can hope for is that leo actually gets the role for one of the pulanski films and throws him some scraps from it. he's not even really made out to be a hero, he probably killed his wife and he was tripping at the time, so you could argue he wasn't really trying to save/prevent anything, he just went on a rampage and slaughtered those hippies.

i liked lots of individual scenes and it looked pretty, but it really doesn't form a good whole for me. 6/10

Attached: choose_wisely.jpg (1024x923, 103K)

>learn
wtf you didn't go to a college class

I liked it

tate stuff was literally just in there as bait to think she'd get killed by manson. that's the "twist" in the movie

>anime character
>garbage incoherent opinion
Everything checks out.

>Had he instead focused on DiCaprio's internal struggle of realizing how he's on the verge of officially being an alcoholic hasbeen and made the core theme how Hollywood chews people up and spits them out when they're expired their hot period, it might have been interesting.

this, he built this shit up in the movie and did nothing with it. same with the brad pitt shit how he was an even more washed up guy basically living as leo's ass kisser and stuck under the shadow of everyone thinking/knowing he killed his wife. instead of giving us some ending that had SOMETHING to do with the rest of the movie, it's just a retarded scene of violence and jerking off to "what if" scenarios

plebians will say the pre-time skip portion of the movie was slow and boring while the end saved it with the action

patricians know that the pre-timeskip portion was good and setup the movie for an interesting third act, which tarantino went off into left field for

It's a happy ending, numbnuts. Leo's character will wind up with a career reviving part in a Polanski movie and Brad's character's career will be re-energised as a direct result.

I've yet to see it, but I'd like to know how you guys thought it held up against Tarantinos past 3 movies (Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained, Hateful 8)

Attached: hateful_eight_2015_british_quad__teaser_original_film_art_2000x.jpg (2000x1499, 452K)

understanding it's a red herring makes the question of "why was this in the film" an even bigger deal you retard. why the fuck would you waste so much effort on something like that

it was pretty slice of life, it was different than what i was expecting. it felt like a 70s friend in LA simulator or something

how is that satisfying, they did absolutely nothing to merit this happy ending. it would be like if at the end of that will smith movie "the pursuit of happyness" he just wins the fucking lottery and isn't poor anymore.

>it was different than what i was expecting
i don't know why but going in i thought this was going to be more of a mystery film. still enjoyed it, but it was jarring at first to reorient myself given how thin on plot the movie is

>incoherent

i bet you are one of the brainlets who was prepared to hate it until they killed the people in the last ten minutes and now you consider it a 10/10

youtu.be/Y_vc44IwiBY

The Bishop of Yea Forums liked it.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 149K)

It's very very different, it's a hang out/slice of life movie with these handful of characters.

Hateful Eight is just too long and too slow and the story isn't even that interesting, but it's saved by the actors. Django has some brilliant moments and I really enjoy Waltz but overall it was meh. I'd say Once Upon is better than both of these.
Basterds is probably mt favorite Tarantino movie, or at least shares first place with Pulp Fiction

the cliff driving scenes made me know it was kino

It was ok. I liked it more than most of other movies. The thing about these plotless hangout movies is that you really make the characters and the situations shine. Everything to do with Cliff's adventures was great but everything else wasn't really that good and the movie could have done with a lot of trimming. Very self indulgent but i suppose thats QTs thing. I don't think i'll ever rewatch it.

It was pretty good. It captured the atmosphere of the late 60's pretty good. The plot was pretty fun and exciting. Not too much violence. It made me hate hippies, at least those bastards who went over the top with the whole communal living hive mentality and the hatred of better people :)

No, i don't like Tarantino that much and i don't like his homages to exploitation. The film was really good for 2 hours then the voice over thing happened, which was strange and unnecessary. It should have just been shown visually. The violence was decent, i was pleasantly surprised since i expected it to be more brutal but it seemed fairly restrained. The film was 8/10.

It's not very plot driven. In basterds and django, the main characters have a clear goal they spend the entire movie working towards. once upon a time is more of a period piece. most of the movie is just spent introducing three characters and telling us about them without any real plot. Then the last like 30 minutes of the 3 hour movie has an event involving them and then the movie is over.

It's not bad by any means, just good to know what you're going in for.

There's a lot of filler. It did not earn the runtime at all.

Attached: 1563377373564.gif (449x307, 3.64M)

>when its 2h in to the film and you realize there is no plot, story, themes, messages that tarantino is trying to convey, character development, narrative

literally nothing happens 90% of the movie. Really no reason for the movie to be almost 3 hours long.

Attached: soiboi.png (434x524, 244K)

OUATIH > Hateful 8 > IB = Django
I don't like IB and Django.

What was the point of that entire Bruce Lee scene? What did it do for the story? It felt so unnecessary. Same with Tate going to the movie and getting the book. Why was any of that shit in there?

Attached: 1565515758783.png (600x512, 298K)

casting dewey crowe as manson was fucking hilarious and tarantino completely wasted it by only having him in a single scene

1. It was funny. Also white men > asian "men"
2. Polanski made a film from that book and he dedicated it to her. The scene in the film was a sweet tribute to that.

Tarantino has always said he writes the characters and then imagines how they would act and basically that's the plot of his movies. He must have done that to a t here because the whole movie is endless character moments with wasted opportunities for some real stories

Was anyone else bothered by the quick jumpcuts? They happened only a few times but i don't understand why.

I had a good experience, really made me feel well for quite a while after getting out of the movie room
I wasn't expectin slice of life tho I thought it would be an action movie with Bruce Lee helping save Tate at the end

It makes me laugh hysterically every time

Had a good giggle when he slammed that asian twink into the car door.

Why would he focus on Rick's problems because he got his shit together after he failed to remember those few simple lines while filming that first scene of Lancer. Rick Dalton wanted to show the world that he is still a good actor. Instead of wallowing in self pity he cut down his bad habits and started to be professional again. And he succeeded in that. Rick was not a has-been after he made those spaghetti westerns.
And Cliff Booth was just a stuntman, nobody outside Hollywood actually knew him. The film showed that he was not that popular guy inside the industry. How can you elaborate that anymore?
The last scene is just a simple what if scenarion where Rick Dalton happened to be making margaritas and pissed off those hippies. The hippies talked in the car about their original plan to kill everyone in Terry's former house (currenly Polanski's) but they changed their target after they recognised Rick. Tarantino could have just made a Tate-Polanski-Manson film if he actually wanted to concentrate on the real murders.

it's a period piece, it's there to further establish the setting. it also sets up cliff to be a really strong bad ass for later when he slaughters the cultists

I didn''t understand that one what meta commentary is made ?

Alternate ending
>similar to film version
>BUT Bruce Lee or Sharon Tate suddenly got involved in the fight with the climax
>The ending was over the top as is.
>A final sequence of Bruce Lee running around beating the shit out of cultists complete with a showdown with Manson himself which would be a tongue in cheek homage to the ending of ENTER THE DRAGON.

>What was the point of that entire Bruce Lee scene?
To show that Cliff was a talented fighter so it would make sense for him to be able to exert that level of BRUTALITY in the end.

It’s self-aware 4th wall breaking for the purpose of irony or satire, it’s tonal, maybe not one ‘message’ coming out of it, more tonal and associative. It might not be ‘bashing’ either, it could be celebratory, but it still has this sort of ironic pervasiveness.

The brutality at the end wasn't really him being a skilled fighter, more like he had a killing machine in canine form and he went primal on the redhead girl
Doesn't take much skill to just grab somebody's head and smash it into the counter

>DUDE WHAT IF THERE WAS AN ALTERNATE REALITY WHERE A HOLLYWOOD STUNT MAN KICKED BRUCE LEE ASS AND THEN KILLED MEMBERS OF THE MANSON FAMILY LIKE SO FUCKING EPIC REDDIT XD

Exactly.
And the Tate bits? To show an actor on her way up, the opposite of Clint. To give us a glimpse into her life; her watching herself on film (and to remind us viewers of the real tate by showing us that old footage).

He has good point about Pitt's character coming from a different time and being very reserved about hippies. It was a good scene when hippie chick offered him blowjob but he wanted to see her ID. She said "I am old enough to fuck you but you are clearly too old to fuck me" or something like that.

I'm glad you reposted this terrific analysis. After reading that user's post the first time I thought about the film and it becomes so obvious that the girl in the pool is obviously a parallel to the lady in the lake, Leo is Arthur and the Flamethrower is his Excalibur (for obvious reasons if you've watched the film.)

>leading actor
>stole the show

>And the Tate bits? To show an actor on her way up, the opposite of Clint. To give us a glimpse into her life
And to make you think that in the end she was gonna get killed, if you knew about the real life story

I wish Damian Lewis had more screen time, I like the guy
Same with Madsen

So Arthur kills the Lady, what's the significance there?

>>indescribably boring
My wife wanted to walk out of the cinema, and I kept checking my watch. I liked the character of Rick Dalton, and I laughed twice (Bruce Lee scene, Cliff as stunt driver), but there's literally no momentum, suspense or even story until the last 40 minutes or so.

The ending was very sad and it felt like a ghost story almost

Well yes.

Glad she got the screen time & not Manson, who has been the source of most of the discussion about the crimes all this time.
And long live buddy movies.

>Had he instead focused on DiCaprio's internal struggle of realizing how he's on the verge of officially being an alcoholic hasbeen and made the core theme how Hollywood chews people up and spits them out when they're expired their hot period, it might have been interesting

Meh, these stories already exist, why try to bring some deepness to something so mundane? The movie as it is is actually more entertaining

Why do people complain about the story and they are also saying that there is no story? That's a blatant lie. The film is more character focused and slice of a life but it has a story. Not a conventional one but it has one. Why can't brainlets comprehend this? Did Avengers really brainwash so many people that they can't even see a story in a Tarantino film?

It's not literal. He's "returning" the weapon in a sense that he's returning the violence that was committed that night in actuality. Even if the minutiae of the symbolism is admittedly a little twisted you can't deny that the girl submerged in water holding a weapon straight up in one arm is clearly referential.

'Once upon a time....
There was a wholesome girl with a fairytale life, everything going her way, saved by the heroic neighbours she'd never even met, from a catastrophe.
And then it ends and it never happened that way after all.

Not bad, Tarantula

How is the ending sad? The hot pregnant chick and her friends don't get murdered, Cliff has some fun brutalizing hippy lunatics while high on acid, Dalton befriends Polanski's wife which likely resurrects his career which in turn will likely give Cliff more work once he's out of hospital
All the good guys win, all the bad guys die very painful and terrifying deaths

>And long live buddy movies.
Yeah the chemistry between Rick and Cliff is excellent

And Manson gets arrested after Cliff tells cops about Spahn Ranch. Good guys win :)

Thank you for finally putting into words how I felt about this film. The Altman-esque stuff with the Brad Pitt character driving around was good. Everything else was weak sauce and didn't hold my interest.
Just watch The Long Goodbye and Stunt Man instead

I shouldn't have to understand 'hollywood history', 'social context', or 'the 60s' in order to watch and enjoy a film. I have no idea who Bruce Lee, Sharon Tate, Lomanski?, or Damian Lewis's character were, and frankly the could have used a lot more exposition.

Attached: 1535875600994.jpg (268x188, 12K)

You have to be 18 or older to post in Yea Forums

october

Damn nice catch, brilliant

Totally agree with this

Al Pacino was in this movie?

Yeah, he plays a Jewish guy.

Please dont use autistic as an adjective ever again.

I'm watching Hateful Eight right now and it is 100x more boring than Once Upon

It was a joke. As in, his character had so little relevance to the movie I don’t even remember him.

You don't like True Romance or Deathproof?

>and frankly the could have used a lot more exposition.
that would have bogged the film down. this isn't a Marvel or DC film where it has to explain things because they cater to a broader audience.

>So you expect people to read the life of Sharon Tate before going to see the film?
People who know anything about movies know who she is.

>that clip will never be submitted for an award
dark times

What did he say?

>and frankly the could have used a lot more exposition.
They did that in Basterds and it was cringey. That Sam Jackson voiceover just about ruins the entire movie.

For me, it's when he destroys the black-haired chick's face with dog food can
I don't know what it says about our society that the entire theater was lmaoing during the entire hippie massacre

Stop being so sensitive

Could have been about 45 minutes shorter.

And could have done with 100% less dirty feet.

I felt asleep twice watching it in the theater. Just too boring to keep me awake. The parts I saw I will give a 4/10. No desire to ever see it again, not even the parts I missed.

Yeah, it was pretty bad. Must have counted at least 20 gratuitous dirty feet shots. Control yourself, Quentin!

life's not been treating you well, huh...

too much white testosterone

It says that we find it hilarious when people who think they're tough run into someone who is legitimately tough and gets destroyed. I'm fairly certain its just a general trait of humans as well.

it's unapologetic about violence, at least movie violence. This is tarantino shoving his dick down the throat of that interviewer he fought with a few years ago. This entire movie is him defending the elite, defending movies, shitting on virtue signalers and hippies, and loving every minute of it. It was great.

you have a small brain and your opinions are worthless

>why are there funny scenes in a comedy?
>why are there scenes that establish and/or flesh out character relationships
go back to your walking dead general you fucking piece of shit

Hollywood > Basterds > dogshit > Django

never saw H8

>The film is actually suprisingly optimistic and I would even say a work of genius, it’s his best filmsincePulp Fiction
I whole heartedly agree with you

yeah, it really is. i mean the movie could've been called The Day Rick Dalton Met Sharon Tate and Changed His Career Forever.

Based Quentin somehow managed to make a brutal murder scene feel uplifting. Everyone in the kinoplex both times I went to see it were laughing during the scene.
The juxtaposition between the genuinely unsettling acting by Tex and the girls, and the hilariousness of the sheer hysteria of how hard they get BTFO is amazing. Rick getting the flamethrower is triumphant. The ending is the most innocent and sweet of all Tarantino's endings despite the turboviolence.

Nothing, based Brad keeps his cucked opinions to himself mostly

It’s a good movie, the people claiming that everyone else who enjoys it is just being pretentious and trying to impress people or whatever are pretty clearly asshurt about others being able to get enjoyment out of it even though they think it’s dull/boring. The interactions between the characters and how they play off of one another are supposed to be the interesting draw of the movie, it’s bizarre how so many people miss that.

Movie of the year for me, absolutely superb. Also zero percent woke, a shocking contest in 2019.

It felt like a real movie, and they dont really make those anymore. It made me sad in that a movie about the end of an era is released in what feels like the end of an era. The era where art was on the screen is passing away into dust.

Attached: marleysghost.jpg (640x350, 147K)

They were not superfluous you dolt.

If you go in not knowing the end it sets the tension in that you think she is about to be murdered.

>in 50 years we will have a kino about a Rick Dalton-esque guy in the 2010's having a mental breakdown because he's getting pushed out by the capeshit takeover, ends up having to do a Netflix show and brutally BTFOs Elliott Rodger

It's a testament to misdirection. Sharon Tate the character exists solely to fuck with the audience. The whole time we're wondering "Oh shit, what the fuck is gonna happen to this bitch". He can't totally surprise us with alt-history, because after Basterds, a lot of people will expect that. But, we're still thinking some bad shit is going down with Sharon. Maybe Rick and Cliff interfere with the murders. Maybe they get revenge--exactly what I expected, they know the ranch location, they find the bodies, they go and fuck up the Manson family after the fact.

Nope. Manson fucks don't even make it up the driveway. It's The Cliff Booth Show and then a flamethrower comes out. 10 minutes of pure delight, then it's implied that Sharon and Rick probably become buddies and I'm sure his life goes extra swell after that night.

Whoever said it was uplifting and positive is spot on.

Also in the misdirection department, that whole ranch scene and all of the tension that builds up to...oh yeah, gramps is fine, nothing to see here. Masterful.

I don't like Hollywood, I don't idolize Hollywood, I don't care about Hollywood
so why would I ever want to watch this movie
nuke california

seething

>implying it idolizes Hollywood
>when Tarantino publically dropped Weinstein after an entire career of working with him upon finding out about metoo shit
>when Rick's career is actively shown to be jewed out from under him by people trying to get their own stars over
>when it actively takes a giant shit all over the Bruce Lee meme
>when Rick pretty much flat out tells the little girl she's gonna be used up by Hollywood soon
what did you want, for rick to look at the camera and make a polanski pedo joke?

What

His politics are by design, friend. Like many other rich and powerful ppl, he's an intelligence asset.

isgp-studies.com/liberal-cia-hollywood

you know what movie i like? the big lebowski. this movie has a similar feel, like you're just walking in on these characters lives for a while and all this crazy shit happens and then... live goes on, man...
knowing the references and such really didn't make a difference for me as far as enjoying it for what it is, more or less like lebowxki, a buddy movie
as far as tarantino movies, i like kill bill 1+2 the most, and this movie is eaily next in line

This unironically. I assumed Steve McQueen in The Great Escape was iconic but even the people near me (in a theater full of actual boomers) were baffled

Yeah CIA is really invested in celebrities pushing medicare for all

I'm just talking about the name.
If the movie was called something else I might be more interested, but come on
>Once upon a time in
Sounds really cliche
>Hollywood
Seriously who cares, Hollywood is becoming less and less relevant. They're just old, out of touch boomers and elder boomers who have nothing but contempt for the regular person. Why should I care about some boring story from there?

>The whole movie is wrapped In the sequence which starts with the juxtaposition of Margot Robbie (playing Sharon Tate) watching the actual Sharon Tate on screen in the movie theater.

QT literally said he just did it that because he thought it would be cool, and he likes seeing Sharon Tate on screen. You are the equivalent of a high-school literary teacher with your meaningless and baseless deconstructions.

John brennan is

everyone was laughing when leo was having his breakdown in his trailer about forgetting his lines, but I thought it was a really heartfelt scene about a guy trying to hold on while his career was winding down

youtube.com/watch?v=_YKk7QsPmXQ&t=5s

Attached: 1539654774271.jpg (800x1164, 155K)

To show that Cliff was a badass.

Hearing Tarantino defend that and explain it makes him sound like a moron though who doesn't know shit about killing or fighting.
Sure, if he can decide that his character can beat this other character, but the reasons he gives for his character being able to do that aren't valid.
He says Cliff is a green beret and killed people in war, so he'd kill Bruce, who's just a trained martial artist who only knows fighting within the rules of his craft, and said sure Bruce would defeat Cliff in a tournament, but Cliff would kill him outside the ring. Which is ridiculous when you actually know anything about Bruce, who pioneered mixed martial arts, practiced and sparred what worked, he didn't fight in tournaments because they weren't real fighting.
Tarantino loves visual violence and the feelings of badassery, but is just hopelessly ignorant about any details of it.

>Tarantino movie
Let me guess at least 40 minutes of skippable scenes?

Yeah he doesn’t have the patience to explain something so obvious to you visually illiterate retards, like when a child asks too many questions so you just whisk them off with a half ass answer. The main thing is this stuff is surface level, there is no ‘deconstructing’, it’s tonal, it’s associative, comparable to music you either pick up on it or you don’t, you’re either visually literate or you’re not. And I’m sorry user, but I have some bad news....

The name of the movie is "Once Upon A Time" retard, its supposed to be a fairy tale

literally just skip to the last 20

who is this autist?

Yeah, you're schizo.

Yeah? And you’re a crybaby, why don’t you go get your diaper changed?

>Jackie Brown

What is with this sudden meme opinion?

If you think this film is in any way deep, you're a fucking idiot. If you cut any scene from this movie, it would be okay. You could cut an hour off of this movie and it would probably make it better, just because that would reduce the meandering qualities of it.
>B-b-but it's not supposed to be a clean plot driven film its clearly a love letter to 1960s film.
Oh really? His love letter to 1960s hollywood is... a movie about 1960's hollywood? Fuckin ace subtlety. And lets not even go into sharon tate, who is supposedly the heart and soul of the film's narrative. In this movie, she's portrayed as a... woman... who likes acting... and smiles when she watches a movie? Wow tarantula, thank goodness you cut through the fat and decided to portray her as a more complex character than just some woman who got killed by the mansons. How about that whole fuckin sequence where tarantino stages a mock western tv show just to show off that he can reproduce a 1960s western. Oh wait, his last movie was literally a western whoops. In short, if you think this is a fantastic movie, go watch some an adam sandler movie and I'm sure you'll find it to be a masterful love letter to 1930s slapstick and screwball comedy.

>Movie with no real plot, just a bunch of meaningless vignettes
"Bravo, fantastic slice of life movie"
>Movie has a bunch of shots of neon signs as 'cinematography'
"What an atmospheric movie"
>A movie about hollywood, literally the most cliche type of feel good navelgazing art film
"contemplative and a love letter to cinema"

3/10

Pretty fuckin boring t b h

Wow, you complain more than my grandma, crybaby, is it early onset menopause or just a higher than average estrogen level? Anyway you’re visually illiterate, you can’t pick up on surface level cinematic image juxtapositions blah blah blah. I can just imagine you sitting there with a big frown on your face and a big diaper full of poop, like Little Lord Fauntleroy upset with his dinner. I don’t even know where to begin breaking down on how you simply lapse the ability to understand or read images, or comprehend intercutting and the comparison of images. Quentin has infamously read a bunch of autistic film theory, Django Unchained being the most prime example of Quentin reading some autistic political film theory and attempting to make a movie out of it. I’m not even pulling this stuff out of my ass, my initial analysis is true, you people just can’t understand simple comparison. Audiences in the early 20th century were more self aware

imagine reading all that

>Django not top 3

Attached: cww2.png (363x373, 328K)

I really likes the scene where leo yells at himself for forgetting lines

>that pitiful hackjob of editing
>top 3

The scene doesn’t really make bruce lee look too bad other than having an ego. He first kicks brad down. The 2nd time brad throws him, Nd 3rd time they kind of spar.

Later scenes show bruce lee teaching others some moves for movies

It shows bruce has a huge ego overstating things but it also put some humor to it and made it all seem more human

I'm not saying it was the best film ever created, but we are comparing it to other Tarantino films, so it's gotta be better than poop fiction

Django is entertaining and decent. No way is it top 3 tho.

It's a movie that I will never, ever rewatch in my life ever again. I never thought I'd say that about a Tarantino film (I've seen Basedful 8 four times since release and people were calling that movife fucking dull and boring). You guys enjoy re-watching all those red herring scenes - I think I'll stick to films where things actually happen.

Attached: 1558685986245.jpg (450x418, 29K)

are you illiterate? I'm saying that pitiful hackjob of editing (R.I.P. Sally) isn't top 3 material. that's in his filmography. not of all film.

wow he read film theory i wish i had fucking thought of that now it all makes sense. Have you considered doing an interview for the new york times? I'm sure their review department will jump at the opportunity to have such a cinematic mind on their team. Also, having the world's first retard critic will be good for the diversitybux.

I know this probably isn't popular opinion around here but... Bastards is Tarantino's worst movie.
This new movie isn't his best work either, but it's good enough.

That's my two cents

No, I don’t want to write for the New York Times you stupid cuck, that would literally be a demotion compared to shining a spotlight on the visually illiterate, my effect on culture is actually heightened here, more people would be reading my works here than compared to the New York Times. Why would that thought even cross through your head? Anyway I’m flattered grandma, it’s good that it all makes sense now but it SHOULDVE made sense in the first place.

This is what happens when somebody with an IQ of over 100 visits Yea Forums and flexes on subhumans.
We get it dude you were the first person in your family to graduate college, now settle down.

absolutely based. Also nice dubs

I never even graduated high school. Its just a necessity to have to fight this war against the visually illiterate, I don’t enjoy my cruelty. I’m also fighting another meta-war against the ‘anti-cinema’ crowd, and I’ve made it my duty to defeat the written-word cucks. In the end I just hope my works glorify God and help people see true beauty by defeating the poisonous influence of the callous, which is an uphill battle nowadays

I'm really disappointed that I haven't seen any webms of the girls dancing yet. I remember watching John Wick 3 the day it came out, going home, opening Yea Forums, and seeing Halley Barry spit into a water bottle

Attached: 1544128946441.png (580x548, 284K)

Wow man you really are down fighting a war in the trenches enjoying Tarantino films. It really is a thankless job where you won't find much popular support on the internet.

t. retard

this

ITT
>why wasn't it darker and edgier and sadder?
>I have no attention span, respect my opinion.
>Why was there no Deeper Meaning in this popcorn movie?
Is Yea Forums always like this? I'm unironically going back to /pol/, they are somehow less retarded.

Ope looks like it’s that time again, another visually illiterate needs their diaper changed...

Attached: 4A6935A9-710D-408B-9659-9E6BBF09F3DC.jpg (1200x800, 83K)

how can someone be visually illiterate. vision issues? audio tapes exist

So, how much feet is in the film? Any pantyhose/stockings?

Fucking this. I said the same thing to my friend. The ending felt cute after all the violence.

One of Tarantula's best unironically

Boomer nostalgia core at best. Which means it's garbage considering this was like the pity movie boomers get to HAVE handed to them from Hollywood. They were a demographic that were feeling culturally alienated, but I'm sure this brought back the good old days for them.

Attached: 1535512605952.jpg (376x349, 22K)

How is the chemistry between Leo and Brad?

>he didn't fight in tournaments because they weren't real fighting.
but he didn't fight outside them either so did he ever really fight? Cliff did

it's great

(whiny, most annoying voice in the world) SO this stunt guy, hes a tough cat - he may be getting old, but hes still a bad motherfucker, dig?? like, jim kelly, three the hard way bad. hes SO bad, get this - my guy whoops bruce lee's ass! a white dude! so i figure, its a fucking TRAVESTY what those freaks did to sharon, man, i say just LET those brides of fu manchu, fuckin blue sunshine drink-your-blood hippie chicks come up here and try that manson stuff on me - i'd fuckin' BARBEQUE em!! torch 'em all, like uhhh "how 'bout a little fire, scarecrow"!!! woosh!!! (cackles & shakes head so violently drops of sweat fly off the kangol)

Boring

t. Nazi sympathizer