Once Upon a Time ... In Hollywood

As a fan of all Q.T. movies, I was eager to see Once Upon a Time ... In Hollywood. It did not disappoint. The movie could most closely be compared to Pulp Fiction, with many parallel story lines, that come together at the end. They also both have long scenes, some of which do not advance the plot very much, which is something I like about it. One should not see this movie for the plot, but out of appreciation of the style. I can tell already this will be a movie I can watch 20 times and still never get tired of.

I would advise anyone who isn't familiar with QT to go in with an open mind. For anyone who liked Pulp Fiction, I urge you to see it. If the violence in Pulp Fiction was a turn off, this one has a lot less. One scene has a lot, but you can see it coming, so close your eyes if you have to.

I saw the movie with two others who faulted the movie after the fact for historical inaccuracies. My interpretation was the movie was an alternate reality movie, like Yesterday, that suggests what would have happened regarding the murder of Sharon Tate if a particular mediocre actor had been alive, who had nothing to do with Tate herself.

The question for the poll is what do you rate Once Upon a Time ... In Hollywood on a 0 to 10 scale? My vote is a 10.

no vote from me now until I get a chance to decide if I will see it.

Tarantino is too fond of extreme violence for me for the most part, and this movie has the potential to really sicken me of course. That subject matter has historical interest to me though, yet your friend might say 'don't go for that' ?

Quote: odiousgambit

Tarantino is too fond of extreme violence for me for the most part, and this movie has the potential to really sicken me of course. That subject matter has historical interest to me though, yet your friend might say 'don't go for that' ?

There is only one violent scene in the movie, but it is very violent. This does not count a couple of fights involving Brad Pitt's character. I'll put it in spoiler tags where in the movie it is, if you want to close your eyes.

I would also say to not see it for the historical reasons, especially that of the Manson Family or Sharon Tate murder. "Realistic" is not a good adjective to describe the movie, although I love the representation of Hollywood in 68 and 69. QT must have gone to enormous expense to capture that. I'd love to know more about how much was actual sets and how much was digital.

depends if the victims were depicted as vile druggies who had ripped off the Manson clan in a prior drug deal and would have massacred the Mansons if they could have.

Quote: Fleastiff

depends if the victims were depicted as vile druggies who had ripped off the Manson clan in a prior drug deal and would have massacred the Mansons if they could have.

What depends on that? Are you suggesting there is the slightest justification for the Manson family to have slaughtered Sharon and her friends?

I’ve seen this 4 times already.

My vote is also a 10.

Quote: beachbumbabs

What depends on that? Are you suggesting there is the slightest justification for the Manson family to have slaughtered Sharon and her friends?

No more justification than Sharon and her friends would have had to descend upon the Death Valley ranch and slaughter the Manson clan.

Quote: ams288

I’ve seen this 4 times already.

My vote is also a 10.

what???
Never left the theater and watched it over and over?
I rarely go to theaters, might have to make an exception

Quote: terapined

what???
Never left the theater and watched it over and over?
I rarely go to theaters, might have to make an exception

I would assume he saw it on different days. I'd already like to go back for a second viewing. Anyone in Vegas interested in joining me?

Quote: Wizard

I would assume he saw it on different days. I'd already like to go back for a second viewing. Anyone in Vegas interested in joining me?

Hwood exploiting the Tate murders
for profit, how original. I'll never see
it just like I ignore most Tarancraphead
movies.