Decode "once upon a time in Hollywood" for me ?
 

Saw that recently... I thought the first 2 hours were a bit slow (acting scenes mostly, you could say we were very pleasantly bored with no idea where this was going) but I enjoyed them anyway for a great look at 1969 Los Angeles and Hollywood, old cars and well recreated locations (at least to my eyes).. then the last 20 minutes switch to bat-$hit-crazy Tarantino stuff which I'll admit I enjoyed quite a bit. Heck of a build up to that, if you think back to how it all tied together, I must say...

SPOILER ALERT

Can someone explain to me, since this was before my time - is Tarentino essentially doing an alternate version of history where the Mason family ends up going to the wrong house and things go "better" - and presumably Sharon tate and her friends survive (and also presumably Polanski never gets in trouble with the law later)... I enjoyed the movie overall because it's well acted and the location stuff, but I think I kinda missed the point... Isn't it kinda disrespectful to the Tate family (and folger), or is is just the opposite somehow? Just wondering, I didn't exist then, I'm probably lacking some cultural references to understand what the goal was / where he's going with this, if that avoided murder was the goal of the movie or a side trip from diCaprio's role... How'd you see this ?

No expert on the subject, but yes, its a complete change of outcome from what really happened. Pretty good at recreation of 1969 LA, I saw a few errors like microwave transmitters and satellite dishes on the roof of a commercial building.

A cornucopia of Tarantino potpourri for the purpose of becoming a cult classic to watch stoned.

Ahhh...I’m not sure that I understand your question. :confused:

You’ve always seemed like a bright guy, you’re really wondering whether this was a fairy tale? “Once Upon a Time...” and the happy ending that defies extremely well known history and you are confused about what you saw?

Not sure how to answer, forgive me.

It's alright Denis... It's just that I knew practically nothing of these events (which predate my birth in another country - I know polanski but from the sex scandal), so I was wondering if I was missing on some cultural lore that might clarify this entire movie for me. The first 80% seemed pretty historically accurate, I was wondering why he changed who gets murdered at the end (hopefully Spoilers were established), if it is seen by viewers as some sort of homage or if it's a little messed up and disrespectful?
it seemed like an incredibly long build up about Dicaprio/Pitt story to go about pivoting at the end from the failed actor story to "saving Sharon Tate". And also since I wikipedia'd it, kinda disrespectful - as I understand she really was pregnant when gruesomely murdered - yet nobody seemed bothered by this alternate ending... It's just a really strange (though entertaining) movie so I was wondering if I was missing something cultural/historical, or if someone knew what Tarentino was aiming at exactly... No biggie... I'll go watch the art of racing in the rain next, that was a good book and i'm pretty sure I'll understand that ;-)

I apologize, did not know that you were that young, etc. The first part of the film was not “historically accurate”, it was a completely made up story about people who never existed, (w exception of Manson family and famous people but even they never did anything portrayed in the film). It’s all fiction, make-believe. :)

I just think of it as a twist that Tarantino pulled on us. I thought I knew all along what was going to happen at the end and was pleased with the unexpected ending. It was kind of like watching the story from a parallel universe. I liked it. I liked the Bruce Lee scene, too.

You wanna know about Charlie and his family read Vincent Buglosi book Helter Skelter.

Talk about truth being stranger than fiction..

Charlie wasn't after Tate and the others..he wanted Doris Days son Terry Melchor who was a record producer who turned him down as a recording artist. Manson also hung with Dennis Wison of the Beach Boys.

With both the Tate and La Biaca murders Charlie knew the neighborhood as he had been there before.

Great to see the old cars in the movie but sadly the Porsche 911 Sharon Tate was driving was a 1973-1973.5 based on the bumperettes, not a 1969. The Volvo 1600S and the Jaguar XKE Coupe packed on the street leading to the Tate home were a nice touch as too the many VW Beetles driving around so common back then.

No surprise from Tarantino given that he said, the ending was going to have a different twist from the Manson tribe. I wondered if that Pit Bull of Brad's was going to spring into action sooner or later and she was great. You know with Tarantino it was going to be bloody and brutal. I thought the story line in the movie was predictable, but he kept focusing on Sharon Tate, her sweet innocence and presenting a constant aire of mystery.

The Steve McQueen character was super! Once McQueen heard he was on the Manson hit list, he started carrying a pistol.

A recent two hour special had several of the Manson woman in an interview. "Squeaky" Fromm said that she got that nickname "squeaky" when old blind man Spahn who owned the Spahn Ranch where the Manson tribe resided touched her on the elbow when he met her and she responded with a "squeak" sound. He called her Squeaky after that and it stuck with her in the tribe.

That was Damian Lewis, from Band of Brothers, homeland, and Billions (which I've finally caught up to, damn it is good! Him and Giamati are phenomenal actors)

Denis, you are pretty harsh on someone that is unfamiliar with something that happened before they were born, straight to insulting.

Ironic when you hold strong opinions regarding current events then confess to be ignorant of key facts.

You’re such a sad old man with nothing but your internet trolling and stalking, Tobra. Give it a rest.

For me, the last 5 minutes made the first 2.5 hours of relatively uninteresting and benign storytelling, worth it, and then some. The twist was great, and classic Tarantino though should have lasted a little longer I think.

1969 LA was fantastic, loved it. I'm not sure when Howard's was started, sign says 60s to me, but have been there and to me it's a quintessential part of modern vintage California.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1565714194.jpg

So, it is Inglorious Bastards in 1969 Hollywood?

I think I'll pass

I would say it has nothing in common with Inglorious Bastards except Brad Pitt. I thought there was a lot more violence in Inglorious Bastards, too.

No. I hated inglorious bastards because it was so silly. This one is way more interesting, if a little slow initially and disjointed, but as shaun said above, the last part of the movie totally makes up for the slow start. And I enjoyed the period LA part (I'm sure I missed out on a lot of nostalgic commercials/signs/brands on display, could hear folks cracking up in the theater "oh I remember that")... In many ways where I live (Marin County) looks a lot like that, still (Eichler homes everywhere, lots of classic cars, little housing development so lots of 60s homes style wise). I'd want to watch it again, but this time I'd FFWD through all the cowboy acting stuff...

Nice guy eddie.

Decode................
 

blah blah blah........ tarantino...... blah blah blah.......hollywood, blah blah blah blah

PCAR CONTENT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1565803597.jpg

I enjoyed every moment of it. Every second of it. Had a great night out dinner in a great restaurant in the movie theater, then upstairs to the movie.

It's title "Once upon a time..." tells you immediately that it's fiction, a story. Not meant to be a factually correct account of the events.

Nice 911 and Karmann too.

I’m nice to the nice people. He ain’t one of them.