Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Puns

Tarantino knows he is getting older. If the countless think pieces and critiques of his work in recent memory haven't told him that, maybe the movies past his generation of colleagues and imitators have. I've never been upset at Tarantino for his remixing style, and when he matches it with a tight enough script, I think he often creates a film greater than the sum of his influences. But Once Upon a Time in Hollywood seems to question whether his allegiance to older film, the movies he grew up on, the movies that made him an artist, makes him unable to connect to an older generation.

The beauty of the film is that it handles this tension comedically. Rick Dalton (a delightfully pathetic Leonardo DiCaprio) is realizing his influence is going just as soon as rising legends like Bruce Lee and Sharon Tate are arriving to replace him. Dalton's immediate response is sorrow: he might have to leave his home to be a hero again, lest he become a guest star for the rest of his life. His best friend and stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) sees the future as a threat, mostly due to his connection towards the Manson family, which Tarantino is enamored with using as a symbol of a less colorful, nostalgic future.

Tarantino refuses to depict the future or the past as the better era to remain in, best seen in his loving depiction of Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate. She glows throughout the movie, and every moment with her only shows the joy of someone growing into their own as an artist. The often discussed depiction of Bruce Lee to me plays as reverential, if misguided. The only way Cliff will play as heroic is if he defeats this legendary star, but as the scene plays out, we realize this is the last gasp of a man who will be forgotten up against an icon forever. By having these two has-beens defeat the Manson family in their own extravagant, classical hero way, leaving them injured and exhausted, Tarantino gives them a last gasp to help lead towards a brighter future. It's a chance for him to accept that the world is growing past him, and only hoping to take on a supportive role for the next generation who have learned from him. It's a typically hopeful Tarantino ending, but one that feels so much more heartfelt.

Edgar Wright is on the cusp of Tarantino's generation: a hyper-stylish film nerd who can give you a watchlist a mile long for each film. It worked to his advantage in his Cornetto Trilogy of comedies with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, as well as his cult classic Scot

Notable Box Office Stories

• The Lion King (2019) - Don't make a royalty pun. Don't make a royalty pun. Lion King continued its reign (DAMN IT) over the box office this week as it held onto #1 with $75.5M. That's actually a fairly steep drop of 60% from last weekend which could mean some of the more negative takes on the film might have some effect. That effect being it will have to wait like a day or two more to make $1B. Yes this is still a monster hit, as now the film has passed $350M domestic and $950M worldwide. So while this won't exactly become the biggest film of all time, it's certainly far from failing and will soon surpass the other slew of billion dollar Disney remakes to become the #1. All this success (see Aladdin write up below) has lead to an insane feat which is that now Disney has broken its own 2016 record for the most money made by one studio at the box office in a single year. Yes even before Frozen 2 and The Rise of Skywalker comes out the studio has amased a massive $7.67B worldwide with their 2019 films with a little under half the year left to go. Comparing the two years, it's clear the Disney forumla still works. You have a big crossover Marvel movie (Civil War/Endgame), a 'live-action' Disney remake (Jungle Book/Lion King and Aladdin), a Star War (Force Awakens/Rise of Skywalker), a Pixar sequel (Finding Dory/Toy Story 4), and a Disney aniamted film (Zootopia/Frozen 2). Box office may be down for everyone else but Disney knows what the people want...the stuff they liked before. Weirdly simple but effectively bleak.
• Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - In a summer where Disney's safe approach has paid off like gangbusters and every other studio's franchise fair has failed, out comes an autuer driven testament to yeteryear in every way as Tarantino's 9th and self-proclaimed penultimate film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood opened to an excellent #2 with $40.3M. The film is not just a throwback in terms of its 1969 subject matter but also in its structure. It'

Im not sure, but undoubtedly this has already been brought up to the sub, I find the movie an excellent one, I loved every minute of it, and find that it shows a growth in Tarantinos qualities as a writer since it had me guessing all the time when shit was going south and I loved that for once the anti-heroes actually make it through. Also the whole ark of the neighbors had me guessing that it was about to go to hell with them, like I would never guess that they just make an excuse to portait how Hollywood was at the time and actually nothing big happens with them.

The movie was never boring, it didn't rush, it told a very nice story. In fact I fell like it would make a great book if he cared enough to expand upon it. The action scene was very much to his style without seeming that much over the top. It made me laugh with them, feel bad for them, I loved Brad's character so much, it was a bit exagereted bit he is a nice loyal guy, and honest fool maybe but a person y would love to call a friend, and Leo's showed a very flawed man but whose heart was big as his acting.

I'm no expert, but if I had to I would give it a solid 9, even a 95/100. This is surely a top 3 Tarantinos movies, for me. I would say Reservoir dogs, this one and pulp fiction/inglorious bastards

Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood just premiered at Cannes tonight and reviews are starting to come out. They're realllllllly good so far and this sounds like it's gonna be another QT classic. He'll once again have the buzziest/most-hyped title out of Cannes. Probably an early front-runner for the Best Picture Oscar next year and many are comparing it to his best work. Also reports of 5+ minute ovations but that's not exactly groundbreaking at Cannes lol. Many calling it Tarantino's funniest film so far and one of Pitt's best performances.

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 94% - 8.12 Average Rating - 32 Reviews

Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus:

> Thrillingly unrestrained yet solidly crafted, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood tempers Tarantino's provocative impulses with the clarity of a mature filmmaker's vision.

Metacritic Score: 89/100 - "Universal Acclaim" - 15 Reviews

The Guardian

> Five Stars. Quite simply, I just defy anyone with red blood in their veins not to respond to the crazy bravura of Tarantino’s film-making, not to be bounced around the auditorium at the moment-by-moment enjoyment that this movie delivers.

Cine Vue

> Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is bold, beautiful and brutal. It’s Tarantino’s best film since Kill Bill, perhaps even since Pulp Fiction.

Telegraph

> There’s a gleeful toxicity here that will launch a thousand think-pieces – Pitt’s character is capital-P problematic, absolutely by design – but the transgressive thrill is undeniable, and the artistry mesmerisingly assured.

Screendaily

> Once Upon A Time….in Hollywood is beautifully made. Beyond all the ‘Tarantino-esque’ touches of the action, the banter, the violence, the constant movie references, there’s a real craft at play here. Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film is a visceral, expertly-crafted homage to the Hollywood’s heyday.

[BirthMoviesDeath](https://birthmov

On the surface both movies seem similar to me. They are both by incredible directors who made some of my favorite movies. They both feature two of the best ensemble casts I’ve seen. They both are dramas based on real events with moments of comedy, and both endings are supposed to upend expectations. They both are somewhat slow and meandering. And they both have been hyped and praised, surely front runners for the Golden Globes and Oscars.

So why was it that I loved Once Upon a Time and would have stayed in that world another 3 hours, but was more disappointed in the Irishman than any movie I can remember?

A few thoughts. . .

1. I was lost by the de-aging in the Irishman for the first two hours. Pesci and Pacino looked fine, but De Niro never looked or moved like he was younger than 55. The grocer stomping scene was embarrassing, the fakest violence I’ve seen in a movie this lauded. Though the beginning was poorly made, I thought the last 45 minutes of the Irishman was heartbreaking.
2. The world building was so much better in Hollywood. From the drive in that Pitt lived behind to the extended TV western scene with Leo, I got to know the places and the people. In the Irishman, I had no idea where or when it was taking place most of the time, and never got interested in any characters beyond the main three (except maybe Ray Romano).
3. The jokes actually landed in Once Upon a Time. The payoff with the flamethrower in the pool had me in stitches, but when was The Irishman supposed to be funny (as many reviews and Redittors say)? When Pacino was ranting about wearing shorts to a meeting? I didn’t laugh once.
4. Pacing. You got so much character development and tension in one scene on the Manson Family ranch, while the breakdown in relations between Hoffa and the mob took several repetitive phone calls and heart to hearts and menacing stares over a half hour. In Once Upon a Time, it was crucial to know Sharon Tate’s story beforehand to build tension for the finale. Her primary character trait, innocence, was deftly shown in her trip to the movies and bookshop and a few earlier scenes. I think the same is true of Hoffa, but I felt like the tension was squandered because his stubbornness had to be emphasized again and again in so many repetitive scenes.

I’m probably going to get downvoted to hell for this, but I wanted to share my opinion since I scrolled through hundreds of posts in the main Irishman discussion without seeing any real negative takes on the

For those of you who may not have seen the movie, Brad Pitt's character picks up an under-aged (16-ish) hitchhiker named Pussycat and is giving her a ride to what turns out to be the Manson ranch. She takes a liking to him, lays her head on his lap and offers him oral sex. He turns it down, not because he's not interested but rather because, as he explains, the law hasn't managed to incarcerate him (yet) and he's not going to jail for having relations with an under-aged girl (phrased in less politically-correct terms in the film).

When I saw the movie a second time on TV I was struck by the fact that there has been virtually no mention of the scene as "problematic" (from all sorts of predictable perspectives) that I'm aware of. And I thought... what if that hadn't been Brad Pitt and, instead, was an unattractive, overweight, hairy (etc) actor... I'm betting there would have been at least a bit of an uproar. ('More sexism and exploitation in Hollywood films. That film had no business portraying that young girl as coming on to that frumpy middle-aged man.')

My point is that the only reason that scene works is that it's... Brad Pitt. He's handsome and charming so their relative ages are irrelevant. So, women (and dads?) in the audience are... 'Ok, yeah, I get it.' Whereas if the actor had been, say, Philip Seymour Hoffman (rip), I suspect some folks would've been taken aback - it would've been deemed 'controversial.'

My point here is that a lot of peoples' problems with age-gap relationships reflect basic ageism. But they ALSO reflect lookism. Brad Pitt can pull off that scene because he looks great; 98% of middle-aged actors couldn't. A typical 50-year old guy dating a 30-year old woman (to use just one example), might engender some disapproval... but if that guy looks like he's 40, there will be considerably less disapproval, if any at all. Ageism and lookism in age-gap relationships go hand-in-hand. But few critics want to acknowledge these forms of discrimination which are widely accepted. Just a thought.

I've been listening to the OUaTiH soundtrack a lot the past few months, and I can't get over how this song which gets needle dropped on screen for the viewer in my opinion explicitly spells out what Quentin is attempting to do with this film. I've edited out redundant lyrics. Please indulge me.

Seems this world has got you down You're feeling bad vibrations frown

(Referring to us, the audience)

Well, open your eyes, girl, look at me I'm gonna show you how it ought to be

(Referring to Sharon, and again the audience. The me is Q, the song is from his perspective, and he is stating that he is going to do some historical revisionism)

We're gonna have a good thing Such a good thing, baby

(The good thing being the point of making the movie. Q is attempting to do a 'good thing' ie prevent the gruesome murder of a good person, and consequently imagining a better world that could follow)

****You can change that wrong to right 'Cause I was there myself last night ****

(Again reversing history, and there last night referring to the night of the murder and how Cliff/Rick/Q were there that night to prevent it rather than what actually happened)

I won't have no one now No one around, to bring you down

(Self explanatory, fits in with not only the murders being prevented but Sharon not even being aware of the murderers presence)

Gotta hear me, you can't please them all, should you try They don't care if you live or die 'Cause they're losers, what a shame I'm gonna show you to a brand new game

(Critics, cynical people, people not on board with Quentin's 'good thing')

I won't tell you no, no, no lies When I'm through, you'll realize For the first time, it seems right I'm gonna stay right here tonight

(Q again correcting history, after the movie the audience will agree that this is how things should have happened. Rick ends the movie going to the Polanski residence, maybe staying there all night?)

So maybe this is a bit of a reach, but I can't help but feel these lyrics really give words to Q specific mission not to provide a grand catharsis in the way of Inglorious Basterds, or Django. His scope is limited, he's trying to just do a good thing, nudge a bit of reality that is off kilter back to how things should have gone. And imagine a world where things like this don't happen to people like Sharon Tate.

Here's a link to the scene:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=THrn0piYldk

If I can advance an even more rid