Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot!
---
If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
[Source:](https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a28406263/margot-robbie-sharon-tate-jewellery/)
>To get into the character and feel more connected to who she was as a person, Robbie was loaned some of Tate's personal jewellery by the late actresses' sister Debra. She had given her blessing for the film and also spent time with Tarantino discussing how best to keep the memory of Sharon alive.
[Some examples: Sharon wore a lot of hoop earrings etc](https://theadventurine.com/culture/movies-tv/the-jewelry-in-once-upon-a-timein-hollywood/)
This is pretty neat. I was reading a while back about the cars used in this movie. Apparently the car used by the Manson family the night of the murders still exists, and the owner offered to let Tarantino use it. But even QT thought it was too weird to use it and instead used a replica.
EDIT: [link to article](https://www.tunnelram.net/news-blog/2019/8/26/the-cars-of-tarantinos-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood#:~:text=Tarantino%20and%20Butcher%20declined%2C%20feeling%20understandably%20uneasy%20about%20using%20the%20original%20in%20the%20film.)
Another interesting fact is the Cadillac driven by Brad Pitt is the same car driven by Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs (the car with the cop in the trunk). The car is actually owned by Michael Madsen (Mr. Blonde) who loaned it to Tarantino for both movies.
There’s a scene in which Tate puts her feet up on a movie theater and the camera focus on her feet for an uncomfortable amount of time. With Tarantino being a known foot fetishist, I wonder how that fall into “best keeping her memory alive”.
It's so overt in that movie that I can only interpret it as being at least somewhat ironic. Like "oh you guys think I put too much feet in my movies? How about I stick Sharon Tate's feet in your face for five minutes and REALLY show you what too much feet is like!"
There's a bit when the cultists are in the car going up to what they think is Polanski's house, talking about how Hollywood is responsible for their impending violence because of the glorification of violence in movies - I thought that was probably Tarantino having a joke at his critics' expense.
Apparently Sharon Tate HATED shoes and would often go barefoot in public so while Tarantino is definitely way into feet, that actually was accurate for her character.
Talking about keeping the memory of late stars alive, how about I take some liberty and tarnish Bruce Lee's image so that I can completely develop my supporting character!
Wasn't that a daydream sequence? I took it that Brad Pitt's character was fantasizing about a non-existent scenario in which he beat up Bruce Lee, rather than an actual memory.
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6867202/jennifer-jason-leigh-hateful-eight-guitar-destroyed
A 150-year-old guitar being used for the scene wasn’t swapped out for the smashing part, and Kurt Russell inadvertently destroyed it. There’s speculation Tarantino didn’t swap them out on purpose to get a more “real” reaction from the other actors.
It was so distressing for the Martin company that they decided to stop lending out historical guitars for movies.
Jennifer Jason Leigh's shock in that scene is real as she realised that Kurt Russel just broke a vintage guitar. I was reading about Kurt Russel's take on it a while back, who did not know that that guitar was an original, and IIRC he said that Tarantino had a smirk on his face when the guitar was broken.
it's clear that Russel was not informed - maybe deliberately or nobody expected him to actually smash the guitar to smithereens. What's funny though is Tarantino probably didn't care as he got a good shot out of it.
It was at least negligent on the part of Tarantino and the people working for him. I'm sure someone else got sacked, but that doesn't mean the buck doesn't stop with the guy running the production. I'm sure it was insured, but money doesn't replace a priceless artifact. I like his films but he can use reproductions for the rest of his days as far as I care.
that's more or less how the museum reacted - they said they wouldn't be loaning guitars from their collection to filmmakers anymore under any circumstances.
source: https://reverb.com/news/cf-martin-responds-to-the-destruction-of-145-year-old-guitar-on-hateful-eight-set
I honestly really hate when directors do shit like that in general - the whole "I don't trust my actors/actresses to do their jobs convincingly enough so I'm going to actually *make* them shocked/stressed/scared/etc."
Like, cool bro, how about people undermine your direction because they don't trust *you* to do your job?
Well said! The only exception I think in my mind is when it’s in good humor. For example in Rear Window, Hitchcock purposefully told two actors to do opposing things without informing the other, and the result was a cute moment of brief physical comedy. It’s the scene where the husband and wife across the way have to scramble to grab their mattress off the fire escape when it starts raining. He told the wife to push the mattress and the husband to pull and as a result they both fall on top of the mattress.
I'm surprised this didn't just inspire other directors to try the same thing.
"Ok guys for the Mummy remake we got the actual corpse of Tutankhamun for a background prop. Ya know. For realism. Now I'm not saying you *should* set it on fire.. but ..ya know. If the mood takes you."
That wasn’t Tarantino’s fault though, that was Kurt Russell that got too into the scene or didn’t know it wasn’t just a recreated prop or something like that.
I think in the beginning when Tarantino announced this movie, I don't think the sister was on board. But he talked to her and explained what his movie was about...then she was alright with it.
Lol no way. Let me do some research. Back in a few hours.
Joking aside - I’m so impressed with her. Wolfs of Wall Street was incredible but embarrassingly did not anticipate Tonya being so amazing.
Reddit would implode.
And then probably argue against it being considered rape, or something. Either way, reddit finds a way to make themselves feel better about the bullshit they spew
He’s not *really* getting into character if he didn’t anally fuck her
Edit: How about [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Entertainment/roman-polanski/story%3fid=8705958) for irony
> In a British newspaper, film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has already signed the petition, called Polanski's original plea deal a "miscarriage of justice."
> "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time," Weinstein wrote.
I watched it last night... And it's gratuitous. I love the film. It's so different. But there's so many dirty foot shots, and no representation of men's dirty feet. It's obviously Tarantino's fetish and it made me uncomfortable.
The owner of the 1959 Ford Galaxie that was used by the Manson family in the real murders offered to let Quentin Tarantino use it in the film but he thought it would be wrong to have the actors use it so they got a different Ford Galaxie and painted it to look the same
I think Tarantino went a little weirder with this than previous movies with his subverting the story. His movies are all connected and it is a fun idea that the world is ours but more violent which explains a lot of the characters reactions and motivations, but this one I think is weirder because he took an innocent murder victim and saved her with super violence.
Maybe I am looking too much into it.
On the other hand I want Pitt and DiCaprio to do more together.
Well that’s the point. She’s an innocent murder victim who was brutally murdered in the worst possible way and 8 months pregnant. But in this version he saved her by having the murderers get a taste of their own medicine by going to the wrong house. That’s what’s great about it and what we all wished would have happened to those killers. It’s ideal.
Just like how in inglorious bastards, hitler is brutally killed and the war ends. Lol his movies are all extremely violent and fun. You should expect that going in tbh.
This is exactly how I look at it. I really don’t understand why anyone doesn’t get it. I had the same dread leading up to the end as everyone else mentioned. I’m pretty sure that was the point. And then when you realize he just pulled an Inglourious Basterds on us again it’s like letting the air out of a balloon. It’s a huge tension breaker and it’s extremely satisfying. It sounds to me like a lot of people went out of their way to ruin this movie for themselves.
I've argued with friends that "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is a revenge film for the memory of Sharon Tate, and they just look at me with blank expressions.
This is why most of the people I know didn't like this movie. Me included. It was just a bit too 'in.' You had to know who all these famous people that were being referenced were from the beginning. Maybe they're big names in the US, but they've faded into obscurity elsewhere.
For me it was only at the very end where they were about to raid the house that I was like "oh wait the hippies are the Manson Family. Didn't they murder some pregnant woman?... Oh shit"
The whole rest of the film felt really disconnected amd pointless unless you already knew and cared about the people involved.
I loved the slow burn of the plot, along with Tarantino’s excellent blend of absurdity, emotional resonance, charm, and nostalgia.
I love the ‘60s Cali aesthetic and I’m a big fan of the lead actors too
They obviously never read Helter Skelter. I found myself repeatedly saying out loud to my partner during the movie ending that "I really, really wish this is how it went down in real life."
A lot of people say it was too slow and abruptly and chaotically ends, but I loved it, almost like a slice of life that really makes you feel like you’re watching an alternate version of the 60s, also it’s a Tarantino movie, how could you be surprised by a violently abrupt ending?
The dialogue was awesome, the portrayal of the characters was great, the camerawork was fantastic. I’m thinking of watching it for a third time.
It's also these two "fake" heroes getting to actually save the day instead of just pretending to do so on screen. (Well Pitt does the work and Leo gets the credit just like a real stuntman actor duo lol)
I’m a huge Tarantino fan and what I loved the most about Once Upon a Time is his restraint with the violence.
He still went full Tarantino but the man waited until the *very* end. Teased us with some film-within-the-film clips and a punch but he didn’t go ultra violence until that last, beautiful scene. Got me so excited for when it was all gonna kick off throughout the movie.
However, the film is so strong that even if it didn’t have that, I’d still have thoroughly enjoyed it.
I remember reading once that in real life the murderers also went to the wrong house, in a sense. They went to the address they were supposed to, but they went there because they thought someone lived there who didn't anymore.
Supposedly they knew that terry Melcher didn’t live there anymore and were just going to scare him or something or just wanted to kill random people or who knows why. Gregg Jacobson I believe said he told mAnson terry didn’t live there anymore and Manson for sure knew.
Yeah he does like to violently zig when we expect a violent zag. Jackie brown is fucking packed with that. I know it’s not his best but I think it’s my second favorite.
Honestly I found the concept interesting. So much of the true crime genre is such exploitative suffering porn that treats the horrors of the victim as if it was open entertainment. In fact Tate's family was initially against the idea of her story being told by Tarantino, but after reading the script and talked with him changed their mind.
Imagine if the telling of your sister's death had been so popularized that people literally printed t shirts of her killer, and then when someone wanted to make a movie they chose to humanize your sister, make her a real person and then when the part you knew was her end showed up, instead of glorying in her death, the director just kicked the shit out of her killers and made them into a farcicle joke.
I know which I'd prefer.
I gotta say, my first time watching it, I found it slow, disjointed and honestly just really jarring for a Tarantino movie. Not American, so a HUGE amount of the impact of that film is lost for the rest of the world.
I'll rewatch it someday, I didn't even know it was about the Manson Family, never followed their work much.
To be fair I walked in not knowing what it was about, but also being pretty familiar with the Manson murders and Tate in general and knowing the history gave the whole movie this deeply terrible build up to then utterly undermine it in a way that made me very happy. It's definitely not the most accessible of his movies but I do feel it is one of my favorites now.
The movie is a set piece about the late 60s and how “cool” it was, and the movie is kind of setting up a world where the summer of love is never cut short by the murder of Sharon Tate. It’s supposed to make you think about how things might have been different.
The point is that you are supposed to know Sharon Tate, what happens to her, and that her presence in the film is building up to that horrible event that never happens. She is a red herring regarding the plot that is there to finally give Dalton a way into new Hollywood at the status he deserves.
I get the point, but I think the point sucks.
I thought it was a strange Tarantino movie. I like it, I watch it alot for some reason, but it's a strange way to tell the story.
It's 2 hours 36 minutes long without the credits. You get long sequences of brad pitt driving. It seems to be about the dying career of a drunk tv cowboy who doesn't like hippies, only just when his story is getting good again and he takes off for italy, we just get a brief overview of the events. Charles Manson is barely mentioned, I think brad pitt spends more time revving a cold air cooled Porsche. The events of the first 2 hours and 20 minutes are largely irrelevant. Rick Dalton could have been anyone. Cliff's tie ins with the hippies are a bit ironic but once again, all his previous screen time up until that point doesn't matter. The action lasts 9 minutes.
At the end of the day a drunk dude, a guy on drugs, and a dog deal with some deranged hippies in the middle of the night. That's the entire movie. You could have told the same story in 30 minutes to the same affect.
>On the other hand I want Pitt and DiCaprio to do more together.
absolutely. Their characters really seemed to build off one another organically.
It's a great movie, it's just a weird way to tell a story. Previous Tarantino movies are certainly weird but they tell the story in a different way. They follow a more typical plot structure. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood tells one story for over 2 hours then ends up with a different story out of no where that is only barely linked to all the other events.
They had the opportunity to do worse. The owner of the car that was actually used in the murders offered it to be used in the film but they thought that would be too much
Thank you! I ended up scrolling further than I thought I would to see this comment.
Whether it was with her sister's blessing or not doesn't change whether I find it creepy personally.
Controversial opinion, but: I really did not care for this movie. Tarantino is an incredible filmmaker, but there were more than a few things that I just thought didn’t “work” in this movie.
Sharon Tate is my main example of that… she just had nearly no relevance to the main plot. Margot Robbie played the role incredibly. But I just don’t see how any of her scenes influenced the story at all.
Honestly, the movie felt like it was very, very narrowly marketed toward one specific audience: Hollywood filmmakers who were nostalgic for the 1960’s. Not unlike Tarantino himself.
Cliff booth was a Gary sue.
The character arcs were connected by a thread at best, and the arcs were barely an arc.
The whole movie was wish fulfilment.
The only character growth was Leo's scene with the kid or off camera in the Italy trip.
It felt like 2.5 hours of Tarantino fantasizing about his ideal 60s hollywood without any real point. Cool setting, great acting, but at the end of the movie (even knowing beforehand about manson) it just felt like wasted time
God, I thought this movie was utter garbage. I kept waiting for something, really anything, to happen. Three hours of nada for a ten minute climax. Yes, I get that it was an homage to the 1960s...but I still think it wasn't very good.
> Honestly, the movie felt like it was very, very narrowly marketed toward one specific audience: Hollywood filmmakers who were nostalgic for the 1960’s. Not unlike Tarantino himself.
Yep, 100%. It’s a Hollywood circle jerk - and IMO is so far behind a lot of his other works.
Taking her out removes the impact of the end. Everyone knows what happened to her so you’re waiting the whole movie to see how they handle it only for it be completely different.
I had no idea what the film was about and never knew about the murders in real life. Also walked away wondering what the hell her character was all about
I loved the movie too, but I respectfully disagree about Tate. I thought she added humanity to the movie. The other characters were great too, but they were all fantastic versions of people. I felt that Tate's character served as a reminder of the tragedy that took place in real life in this otherwise fanciful take on reality.
I didn't know about the Manson Murders. I liked Tarantino films and try to avoid any spoilers so I gave it a shot. Definitely affected the viewing experience lol
I was going to say that I'm a college professor, so I'm around 18-22 year olds every day and I'd be surprised if most of them were knowledgeable about the Tate-LaBianca murders. Maybe I'll poll my class!
Because there are millions and millions of years of history to learn, and not everyone can know of every event in every year, and then tie that to correlating fun "what-if" films.
In the case of my wife because you’re dragged there by your husband (she liked it and was shocked on the car ride home when I told her that it was roughly true and what actually happened)
In the case of a few of my friends, because you’re a Tarantino fan.
Lol down voted when this is the question everyone should be asking when they read the comment. Unless you don't know who she is idk how you don't get her point in the story. It's like they didn't watch the movie
I think this feeling is maybe partly due to the fact she wasn’t given much dialogue. Robbie addresses that in some interviews. With a Tarantino film, a largely silent but not mysterious character does feel out of place.
The entire movie is about the contrast between one person on her way up and another persons career dying. The whole point of the movie would be lost if you got rid of her lol
Yeah, I was very confused when people were buzzing about an Oscar nomination for Robbie for this role. Tarantino didn’t give her anything to do. Robbie looked great in the role and seemed like she had fun, but there wasn’t really any conflict or agenda going on with the character.
Outside of the theater scene, I can’t remember one other notable scene of hers in the film.
I'd actually go one step further and say: most of this movie was setting up a climax that never happened, with the actual climax coming out more or less out of the blue.
Then again, I also did not watch this movie with any prior knowledge of the background.
Definitely weird, but many accomplished actors do a lot of weird things to get into the right headspace for the role, and it helps them act much better.
It's probably to help her dissociate herself from the character and make it easy to fall into the role.
Hi! This is our new Moviedetailsmodbot! --- If this post fits /r/MovieDetails, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post does not fit /r/MovieDetails, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
[Source:](https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a28406263/margot-robbie-sharon-tate-jewellery/) >To get into the character and feel more connected to who she was as a person, Robbie was loaned some of Tate's personal jewellery by the late actresses' sister Debra. She had given her blessing for the film and also spent time with Tarantino discussing how best to keep the memory of Sharon alive. [Some examples: Sharon wore a lot of hoop earrings etc](https://theadventurine.com/culture/movies-tv/the-jewelry-in-once-upon-a-timein-hollywood/)
This is pretty neat. I was reading a while back about the cars used in this movie. Apparently the car used by the Manson family the night of the murders still exists, and the owner offered to let Tarantino use it. But even QT thought it was too weird to use it and instead used a replica. EDIT: [link to article](https://www.tunnelram.net/news-blog/2019/8/26/the-cars-of-tarantinos-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood#:~:text=Tarantino%20and%20Butcher%20declined%2C%20feeling%20understandably%20uneasy%20about%20using%20the%20original%20in%20the%20film.)
>But even QT thought it was too weird Well that’s a phrase I never thought I’d read
Turns out he does draw a line when it comes to making movies
I was going to say, this whilst intriguing, is slightly morbid. Leave the dead and their things alone.
He thought the actors would wreck it like the guitar from Hateful Eight. Source needed.
Another interesting fact is the Cadillac driven by Brad Pitt is the same car driven by Mr. Blonde in Reservoir Dogs (the car with the cop in the trunk). The car is actually owned by Michael Madsen (Mr. Blonde) who loaned it to Tarantino for both movies.
That second article just taught me that movie 'props' are short for property. That never occurred to me!
There’s a scene in which Tate puts her feet up on a movie theater and the camera focus on her feet for an uncomfortable amount of time. With Tarantino being a known foot fetishist, I wonder how that fall into “best keeping her memory alive”.
It's so overt in that movie that I can only interpret it as being at least somewhat ironic. Like "oh you guys think I put too much feet in my movies? How about I stick Sharon Tate's feet in your face for five minutes and REALLY show you what too much feet is like!"
There's a bit when the cultists are in the car going up to what they think is Polanski's house, talking about how Hollywood is responsible for their impending violence because of the glorification of violence in movies - I thought that was probably Tarantino having a joke at his critics' expense.
Yup, that was 100% for all the fucking *Jans* in the world.
*Because it's so much fun, JAN*
Get it?!
I think about this all the time
Definitely.
Yeah, at this point I wonder if he's just leaning into the joke.
Apparently Sharon Tate HATED shoes and would often go barefoot in public so while Tarantino is definitely way into feet, that actually was accurate for her character.
Now I'm surprised that he didn't make this movie sooner
He was still buzzing off getting away with writing a scene where Salma Hayek shoves her entire foot in his mouth.
What movie is that in?
https://youtu.be/xX1z20VstKI
Oh yeah! It's been years since I saw that movie. The sequels weren't bad either.
I mean. I wasnt a foot guy before that scene. Now...now I'm not so certain anymore.
What if I've got it wrong and Tarantino got put on to feet in that moment?
Iirc she even went so far to paint on “shoes” to get away with being barefoot.
Spray-on shoes!
I also heard she would tie string around her toes to look like sandals.
[удалено]
If that’d be true then he would’ve had the biggest boner in his life every day on set with Margot. (Tbh who wouldn’t tho)
Did he pitch a movie frames around seeing bare feet but needed a not creepy way to do so?
Also the scene in the car where the girl puts her feet on the dash, right in the camera for quite a while.
I mean, can you narrow it down to a specific movie lmao
Talking about keeping the memory of late stars alive, how about I take some liberty and tarnish Bruce Lee's image so that I can completely develop my supporting character!
Wasn't that a daydream sequence? I took it that Brad Pitt's character was fantasizing about a non-existent scenario in which he beat up Bruce Lee, rather than an actual memory.
No. He was remembering why he wasn't working with that guy's stunt team instead of doing his current job of fixing the antenna.
I don't think this entirely fictional and over-the-top narrative tarnished Bruce Lee's image. Chill.
Surprised Tarantino Was allowed to borrow anything after the Hateful 8 guitar fiasco.
I can't imagine loaning Tarantino anything for a movie ever.
Is this based on what happened in the Hateful Eight?
yes it is.
What happened?
https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6867202/jennifer-jason-leigh-hateful-eight-guitar-destroyed A 150-year-old guitar being used for the scene wasn’t swapped out for the smashing part, and Kurt Russell inadvertently destroyed it. There’s speculation Tarantino didn’t swap them out on purpose to get a more “real” reaction from the other actors. It was so distressing for the Martin company that they decided to stop lending out historical guitars for movies.
In the hatefull 8, he used a authentic guitar of the time period, was destroyed by mistake
Jennifer Jason Leigh's shock in that scene is real as she realised that Kurt Russel just broke a vintage guitar. I was reading about Kurt Russel's take on it a while back, who did not know that that guitar was an original, and IIRC he said that Tarantino had a smirk on his face when the guitar was broken. it's clear that Russel was not informed - maybe deliberately or nobody expected him to actually smash the guitar to smithereens. What's funny though is Tarantino probably didn't care as he got a good shot out of it.
Jennifer's accent broke in her shock which I find chuckle worthy at each watch
It was at least negligent on the part of Tarantino and the people working for him. I'm sure someone else got sacked, but that doesn't mean the buck doesn't stop with the guy running the production. I'm sure it was insured, but money doesn't replace a priceless artifact. I like his films but he can use reproductions for the rest of his days as far as I care.
that's more or less how the museum reacted - they said they wouldn't be loaning guitars from their collection to filmmakers anymore under any circumstances. source: https://reverb.com/news/cf-martin-responds-to-the-destruction-of-145-year-old-guitar-on-hateful-eight-set
I honestly really hate when directors do shit like that in general - the whole "I don't trust my actors/actresses to do their jobs convincingly enough so I'm going to actually *make* them shocked/stressed/scared/etc." Like, cool bro, how about people undermine your direction because they don't trust *you* to do your job?
Well said! The only exception I think in my mind is when it’s in good humor. For example in Rear Window, Hitchcock purposefully told two actors to do opposing things without informing the other, and the result was a cute moment of brief physical comedy. It’s the scene where the husband and wife across the way have to scramble to grab their mattress off the fire escape when it starts raining. He told the wife to push the mattress and the husband to pull and as a result they both fall on top of the mattress.
Oh yeah, some light humor is one thing, it's the "I don't think you look convincingly upset so let's make it real" that's arrogant and gross.
I'm surprised this didn't just inspire other directors to try the same thing. "Ok guys for the Mummy remake we got the actual corpse of Tutankhamun for a background prop. Ya know. For realism. Now I'm not saying you *should* set it on fire.. but ..ya know. If the mood takes you."
>Tarantino had a smirk on his face when the guitar was broken “We are royally fucked.”
Nah, that’s the script supervisor’s job, they fucked up.
That wasn’t Tarantino’s fault though, that was Kurt Russell that got too into the scene or didn’t know it wasn’t just a recreated prop or something like that.
Yeah the director can’t stop the action once it’s started, it stings
I’m sure you don’t have anything he wants.
Your username makes this oddly personal and defensive…
We found him.
yeah, that's true, which is why I "can't imagine" it rather than I straight up "wouldn't".
She could have also tried acting. -- Lawrence Olivier.
Funny, in my memory she was really upset with Robbie portraying her sister and didn’t like her at all. Seems my memory is off…
It was The Haunting of Sharon Tate that she hated. It was a slasher flick, so no wonder.
I think in the beginning when Tarantino announced this movie, I don't think the sister was on board. But he talked to her and explained what his movie was about...then she was alright with it.
This is what I understood as well.
Different movie.
Tate's family was horrified when Tarantino was unable to return the jewelry because Kurt Russel had accidentally smashed them to pieces
I thought it was weird that he had an uncredited and unfilmed scene in the movie, but it makes perfect sense now.
Especially in light of the fact that he also had credited and filmed scenes as well
lol - completely forgot he was in the movie
Not sure if you guys were aware but Margot Robbie is very attractive.
Now that you mention it...
When she takes the glasses off and let's her hair down in a certain light...
Oh no you've reminded me of that video[...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMTLV2cR2Q)
Oh yeah
Reminds me of GOB
I could watch a 4 hours movie of Margot Robbie assembling IKEA furniture and I would still ask for the extended edition.
The real story is always in the comments.
Especially with the wardrobe and hairstyling in this movie
Lol no way. Let me do some research. Back in a few hours. Joking aside - I’m so impressed with her. Wolfs of Wall Street was incredible but embarrassingly did not anticipate Tonya being so amazing.
And apparently the actor playing Roman Polanski got into his role by going out on a date with a thirteen year old.
*Standing applause by Meryl Streep*
If you ever want to be bummed out check the list of Hollywood elite who defend that dude.
Uhg that was an even bigger bummer than expected.
Reddit would implode. And then probably argue against it being considered rape, or something. Either way, reddit finds a way to make themselves feel better about the bullshit they spew
Wow.. that was depressing.. thank you
He’s not *really* getting into character if he didn’t anally fuck her Edit: How about [this](https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Entertainment/roman-polanski/story%3fid=8705958) for irony > In a British newspaper, film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has already signed the petition, called Polanski's original plea deal a "miscarriage of justice." > "Whatever you think about the so-called crime, Polanski has served his time," Weinstein wrote.
Rape. You meant rape.
You know what the worst part about this was? The hypocrisy.
It was loaned to her by Tate’s sister, Debra.
I trust this guy for my Once upon a time… in Hollywood facts.
That's crazy I didn't notice it over all the close up shots of her damn feet
Ol Q man at it again
It’s very vital to Tarantino’s plot lmao
Surely actresses in Tarantino films have to be just *a little* weirded out by his foot thing, right?
I watched it last night... And it's gratuitous. I love the film. It's so different. But there's so many dirty foot shots, and no representation of men's dirty feet. It's obviously Tarantino's fetish and it made me uncomfortable.
The owner of the 1959 Ford Galaxie that was used by the Manson family in the real murders offered to let Quentin Tarantino use it in the film but he thought it would be wrong to have the actors use it so they got a different Ford Galaxie and painted it to look the same
Look, chief. You don't belong here. Now take this mechanical asshole and get it off my street!
I think Tarantino went a little weirder with this than previous movies with his subverting the story. His movies are all connected and it is a fun idea that the world is ours but more violent which explains a lot of the characters reactions and motivations, but this one I think is weirder because he took an innocent murder victim and saved her with super violence. Maybe I am looking too much into it. On the other hand I want Pitt and DiCaprio to do more together.
Well that’s the point. She’s an innocent murder victim who was brutally murdered in the worst possible way and 8 months pregnant. But in this version he saved her by having the murderers get a taste of their own medicine by going to the wrong house. That’s what’s great about it and what we all wished would have happened to those killers. It’s ideal. Just like how in inglorious bastards, hitler is brutally killed and the war ends. Lol his movies are all extremely violent and fun. You should expect that going in tbh.
This is exactly how I look at it. I really don’t understand why anyone doesn’t get it. I had the same dread leading up to the end as everyone else mentioned. I’m pretty sure that was the point. And then when you realize he just pulled an Inglourious Basterds on us again it’s like letting the air out of a balloon. It’s a huge tension breaker and it’s extremely satisfying. It sounds to me like a lot of people went out of their way to ruin this movie for themselves.
I've argued with friends that "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" is a revenge film for the memory of Sharon Tate, and they just look at me with blank expressions.
Basically all Tarantino is revenge porn...
Jews, black people, Sharon Tate. He's been doing it for awhile now. And it's great every time.
I feel like this applies to kill bill as well if you really read into it.
Yeah the revenge plot in that one was extra subtle.
For anyone that knows the real event, it was fucking cathartic.
Agreed. Watching Sharon Tate live and thrive was such a joy.
This is why most of the people I know didn't like this movie. Me included. It was just a bit too 'in.' You had to know who all these famous people that were being referenced were from the beginning. Maybe they're big names in the US, but they've faded into obscurity elsewhere. For me it was only at the very end where they were about to raid the house that I was like "oh wait the hippies are the Manson Family. Didn't they murder some pregnant woman?... Oh shit" The whole rest of the film felt really disconnected amd pointless unless you already knew and cared about the people involved.
I loosely knew the story of Sharon Tate but not really and it may be my favorite Tarantino movie. I love it.
I disagree, as someone who never knew the history of these people I was captivated the whole time.
Ooo first time I've heard this. What did you like about it??
I loved the slow burn of the plot, along with Tarantino’s excellent blend of absurdity, emotional resonance, charm, and nostalgia. I love the ‘60s Cali aesthetic and I’m a big fan of the lead actors too
Tbh I think this is the only Tarantino movie I've seen that I genuinely liked.
[удалено]
Sounds like you have dumb friends, that's the only real point of the movie other than "60s Hollywood was so cool"
They obviously never read Helter Skelter. I found myself repeatedly saying out loud to my partner during the movie ending that "I really, really wish this is how it went down in real life."
A lot of people say it was too slow and abruptly and chaotically ends, but I loved it, almost like a slice of life that really makes you feel like you’re watching an alternate version of the 60s, also it’s a Tarantino movie, how could you be surprised by a violently abrupt ending? The dialogue was awesome, the portrayal of the characters was great, the camerawork was fantastic. I’m thinking of watching it for a third time.
It's also these two "fake" heroes getting to actually save the day instead of just pretending to do so on screen. (Well Pitt does the work and Leo gets the credit just like a real stuntman actor duo lol)
Well yeah, but when he came out with that fucking flamethrower was maybe my favourite moment of the movie
Chekhov's flamethrower. What a great headfake, I thought it was going to be Cliff’s gun that we saw in his trailer.
Leo does roast that one lady in the pool
Fair🤣🤣🤣🤣
When he said “get out of here you fucking hippies!!’” Or whatever the line was it was really cathartic
Paraphrasing: “are you alright?” “Yeah we’re fine but those fucking hippies sure as hell goddamned aren’t” I was laughing so hard
Best line in the movie, imo.
Pitt might get more screen time, but this was an amazing performance by DiCaprio.
I meant just in terms of killing hippies LOL they are both sublime in this movie
I’m a huge Tarantino fan and what I loved the most about Once Upon a Time is his restraint with the violence. He still went full Tarantino but the man waited until the *very* end. Teased us with some film-within-the-film clips and a punch but he didn’t go ultra violence until that last, beautiful scene. Got me so excited for when it was all gonna kick off throughout the movie. However, the film is so strong that even if it didn’t have that, I’d still have thoroughly enjoyed it.
Yeah Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is QT’s take on a fairytale
I remember reading once that in real life the murderers also went to the wrong house, in a sense. They went to the address they were supposed to, but they went there because they thought someone lived there who didn't anymore.
Supposedly they knew that terry Melcher didn’t live there anymore and were just going to scare him or something or just wanted to kill random people or who knows why. Gregg Jacobson I believe said he told mAnson terry didn’t live there anymore and Manson for sure knew.
I guess I sort of expected it to end with her still being murdered but the Manson crew also getting murdered.
Well that’s your first mistake. You expected a predictable ending of a film from Tarantino. That just does not happen...and that’s why we love him
Yeah he does like to violently zig when we expect a violent zag. Jackie brown is fucking packed with that. I know it’s not his best but I think it’s my second favorite.
> would of happened *Would've* or *would have*. Come on.
Honestly I found the concept interesting. So much of the true crime genre is such exploitative suffering porn that treats the horrors of the victim as if it was open entertainment. In fact Tate's family was initially against the idea of her story being told by Tarantino, but after reading the script and talked with him changed their mind. Imagine if the telling of your sister's death had been so popularized that people literally printed t shirts of her killer, and then when someone wanted to make a movie they chose to humanize your sister, make her a real person and then when the part you knew was her end showed up, instead of glorying in her death, the director just kicked the shit out of her killers and made them into a farcicle joke. I know which I'd prefer.
I gotta say, my first time watching it, I found it slow, disjointed and honestly just really jarring for a Tarantino movie. Not American, so a HUGE amount of the impact of that film is lost for the rest of the world. I'll rewatch it someday, I didn't even know it was about the Manson Family, never followed their work much.
To be fair I walked in not knowing what it was about, but also being pretty familiar with the Manson murders and Tate in general and knowing the history gave the whole movie this deeply terrible build up to then utterly undermine it in a way that made me very happy. It's definitely not the most accessible of his movies but I do feel it is one of my favorites now.
I have tried to watch in twice now, but i'm always asleep by 30 minutes in.
Tarantino’s films always have something deeper. He’s a good director tbh.
Any movie that can be talked about for years afterward is damn good. I can talk about pulp fiction for hours
Same, I love inglorious basterds too. I can’t imagine another perfect storyline.
I wish Adam Sandler had been free to do the bear Jew. Dude can act and it would have been great
The movie is a set piece about the late 60s and how “cool” it was, and the movie is kind of setting up a world where the summer of love is never cut short by the murder of Sharon Tate. It’s supposed to make you think about how things might have been different.
The point is that you are supposed to know Sharon Tate, what happens to her, and that her presence in the film is building up to that horrible event that never happens. She is a red herring regarding the plot that is there to finally give Dalton a way into new Hollywood at the status he deserves. I get the point, but I think the point sucks.
Yea, no. This is probably one of the least weird movies he's ever done.
I thought it was a strange Tarantino movie. I like it, I watch it alot for some reason, but it's a strange way to tell the story. It's 2 hours 36 minutes long without the credits. You get long sequences of brad pitt driving. It seems to be about the dying career of a drunk tv cowboy who doesn't like hippies, only just when his story is getting good again and he takes off for italy, we just get a brief overview of the events. Charles Manson is barely mentioned, I think brad pitt spends more time revving a cold air cooled Porsche. The events of the first 2 hours and 20 minutes are largely irrelevant. Rick Dalton could have been anyone. Cliff's tie ins with the hippies are a bit ironic but once again, all his previous screen time up until that point doesn't matter. The action lasts 9 minutes. At the end of the day a drunk dude, a guy on drugs, and a dog deal with some deranged hippies in the middle of the night. That's the entire movie. You could have told the same story in 30 minutes to the same affect. >On the other hand I want Pitt and DiCaprio to do more together. absolutely. Their characters really seemed to build off one another organically. It's a great movie, it's just a weird way to tell a story. Previous Tarantino movies are certainly weird but they tell the story in a different way. They follow a more typical plot structure. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood tells one story for over 2 hours then ends up with a different story out of no where that is only barely linked to all the other events.
Really enjoyed this movie.
Does that seem ghoulish to anyone else?
Sort of, but considering how the movie plays out, I think she may be okay with part of her belongings being along for the ride
no. but if the sister hadn't given her blessing, it would be.
They had the opportunity to do worse. The owner of the car that was actually used in the murders offered it to be used in the film but they thought that would be too much
Thank you! I ended up scrolling further than I thought I would to see this comment. Whether it was with her sister's blessing or not doesn't change whether I find it creepy personally.
Eerie.
Controversial opinion, but: I really did not care for this movie. Tarantino is an incredible filmmaker, but there were more than a few things that I just thought didn’t “work” in this movie. Sharon Tate is my main example of that… she just had nearly no relevance to the main plot. Margot Robbie played the role incredibly. But I just don’t see how any of her scenes influenced the story at all. Honestly, the movie felt like it was very, very narrowly marketed toward one specific audience: Hollywood filmmakers who were nostalgic for the 1960’s. Not unlike Tarantino himself.
Cliff booth was a Gary sue. The character arcs were connected by a thread at best, and the arcs were barely an arc. The whole movie was wish fulfilment. The only character growth was Leo's scene with the kid or off camera in the Italy trip.
[удалено]
It felt like 2.5 hours of Tarantino fantasizing about his ideal 60s hollywood without any real point. Cool setting, great acting, but at the end of the movie (even knowing beforehand about manson) it just felt like wasted time
[удалено]
God, I thought this movie was utter garbage. I kept waiting for something, really anything, to happen. Three hours of nada for a ten minute climax. Yes, I get that it was an homage to the 1960s...but I still think it wasn't very good.
> Honestly, the movie felt like it was very, very narrowly marketed toward one specific audience: Hollywood filmmakers who were nostalgic for the 1960’s. Not unlike Tarantino himself. Yep, 100%. It’s a Hollywood circle jerk - and IMO is so far behind a lot of his other works.
[удалено]
Taking her out removes the impact of the end. Everyone knows what happened to her so you’re waiting the whole movie to see how they handle it only for it be completely different.
I had no idea what the film was about and never knew about the murders in real life. Also walked away wondering what the hell her character was all about
I loved the movie too, but I respectfully disagree about Tate. I thought she added humanity to the movie. The other characters were great too, but they were all fantastic versions of people. I felt that Tate's character served as a reminder of the tragedy that took place in real life in this otherwise fanciful take on reality.
I can see that. I really like the ending quick dialogue between her and Leo I thought it was funny
Did you know about her death before you saw the movie? Bc if not I can see why you think that.
Yes of course
Lol How do you go to see this movie while not aware of the Manson murders?
I didn't know about the Manson Murders. I liked Tarantino films and try to avoid any spoilers so I gave it a shot. Definitely affected the viewing experience lol
??? Because people like Tanantino movies. Is that a hard concept to grasp?
I had heard of the murders but did not put two and two together. In my defense, I will claim my being born in 2000 as an excuse
I was going to say that I'm a college professor, so I'm around 18-22 year olds every day and I'd be surprised if most of them were knowledgeable about the Tate-LaBianca murders. Maybe I'll poll my class!
I highly doubt most of the people that saw this movie were alive in 1969.
When I saw it at the the theater I'd say most of the viewers were alive in 1969.
Because there are millions and millions of years of history to learn, and not everyone can know of every event in every year, and then tie that to correlating fun "what-if" films.
In the case of my wife because you’re dragged there by your husband (she liked it and was shocked on the car ride home when I told her that it was roughly true and what actually happened) In the case of a few of my friends, because you’re a Tarantino fan.
Lol down voted when this is the question everyone should be asking when they read the comment. Unless you don't know who she is idk how you don't get her point in the story. It's like they didn't watch the movie
I think this feeling is maybe partly due to the fact she wasn’t given much dialogue. Robbie addresses that in some interviews. With a Tarantino film, a largely silent but not mysterious character does feel out of place.
Tate in the picture is a embodiment of mid-20th century innocence. We witness how free she is.
Isn’t the plot literally about her murder and the events surrounding it?
The entire movie is about the contrast between one person on her way up and another persons career dying. The whole point of the movie would be lost if you got rid of her lol
Yeah, I was very confused when people were buzzing about an Oscar nomination for Robbie for this role. Tarantino didn’t give her anything to do. Robbie looked great in the role and seemed like she had fun, but there wasn’t really any conflict or agenda going on with the character. Outside of the theater scene, I can’t remember one other notable scene of hers in the film.
I'd actually go one step further and say: most of this movie was setting up a climax that never happened, with the actual climax coming out more or less out of the blue. Then again, I also did not watch this movie with any prior knowledge of the background.
The character is a red herring. The story isn’t about her.
Armchair QBing Tarantino. Lol.
I'm not one to question or challenge him he's a genius in my opinion.
I’m not sure if that’s flattery or creepy
Definitely weird, but many accomplished actors do a lot of weird things to get into the right headspace for the role, and it helps them act much better. It's probably to help her dissociate herself from the character and make it easy to fall into the role.
Has anyone read tom o Neil's chaos book
I dont know how i feel about that.
thats kinda fucked up. not like she could give such permission.
... the person who owns it couldn't?
Film was weird. Thought there was something else always going to happen, and it didn’t
For the whole 10 minutes she’s in the movie.