re: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood opening day check in thread ***Spoilers Inevitable***

Cliff’s dog is the fricking hero of the movie.

quote:

---

Why do you need so much attention?

---

Because I know you'll give it.

quote:

---

One of the ways I knew I'd grown to adulthood was when I realized that Tarantino's "signature dark humor" is basically just him being a coked-up homo, and that all of his movies are pretty much the same.

---

Imagine a mind, so pedantic and impotent, that it spawned the idea of typing this post and hitting enter.

I pretty much dislike almost every marvel movie. Love pitt and leo as actors. Also like QT films. Thought this was kinda boring. Not enough good dialogue, and i felt like alot of the scenes were dragging

quote:

---

They made a poor choice.

---

I liked, I mean we got that flamethrower scene from it

I am amazed by how polarizing this movie has been so far. I went into this movie with some major expectations. However, I left the theater feeling vastly disappointed and underwhelmed. I found myself dozing off during the second act.

Pros:
-Aesthetics (holy shite this film nails the look, feel, and sound of the era)
-Brad Pitt (badass and cool as shite)
-Leonardo DiCaprio (performance a bit over-the-top at certain points, but he was funny as hell throughout)
-Bruce Dern
-Bruce Lee “cameo” (terrifyingly accurate with the inflection of his speech)
-Brandi (only time I’ve ever rooted for a pit)
-Third Act (aside from the odd voice-over by Kurt Russell and the Italian sequence, this was the most entertaining section of the film)
-Little girl
-Editing DiCaprio into actual films/television
-Tension during Manson Family encounter

Cons:
-Pacing (movie seemed to drag on and on during the second act)
-Lack of Manson (screen time was short lived and portrayal wasn’t even close to accurate)
-Sharon Tate (as others have said, felt pointless; if Pitt would’ve rescued them instead of reacting to his own attack then it might have been more impactful)
-Bloated cast (some actors seemed to serve little to no purpose in the narrative)
-Foot fetish overkill (Jesus, Tarantino didn’t even try to hide it this time)
-Brad Pitt fricking up Bruce (How much of my disbelief must I suspend?)
-Lack of a cohesive narrative (perhaps due to not having a central protagonist, but the film is Tarantino’s most disjointed yet)

7/10

Very well-acted by the entire cast and the dialogue was easy to follow and not drawn out. There were a couple of 5-10 minute sequences that just dragged but when we snapped back to good film it was really good.

I laughed a lot throughout and the final 20 minutes are fantastic.

I wanted more Margot Robbie/Sharron Tate and another 10 minutes of Manson screentime, but other than that it was awesome watching the chemistry between Pitt and Leo.

Feel like this movie is big-time rewatchable at home but not in theaters.

So, is this board really so full of old men that forgot to take their afternoon naps before going to the theater, or are these guys just lieing about falling asleep to exaggerate to make their point?

quote:

---

but honestly this movie felt like a Hollywood circle jerk for the majority of the time.

---

Not attacking your opinion, but this has been repeated enough times that I'm going to ask about it. Why is a midlife crisis movie set in the world of cheap genre television of the 60s a Hollywood circle jerk? We spend so little time with the actual Hollywood people - Polanski, McQueen, and I guess Tate (she only had a few roles, she was not at all yet a star).

Are we saying that Hollywood is congratulating itself for chewing up middle aged actors when their prime has passed? Is QT so obviosuly waxing poetic about the B-TV shows that he recreated with obviously silly dialogue and scenarios, with pompous, a-hole directors?

quote:

---

A pit bull as a hero, man talk about Hollywood being disconnected from reality lol

---

Those frickers need to start reading the OT. they'll get schooled toots sweet on pit bulls.