Machado 1,710 Posted August 25, 2019 Author Share Posted August 25, 2019 Beautiful film. Got to love Tarantino rewriting history in his films. Small feeling of justice in the end there. I get some parts are slow burning but actually pay attention to what's happening on the screen and appreciate every detail. The more you appreciate cinema as an art, the more you will like this film. Tarantino's love of film making and its history fully at display here. It was the third time I went o see a Tarantino film in the cinema and every time I could hear people moaning about the pace or walking away. Is this what Fast and Furious does to people? Imagine if Pulp Fiction came out today, which is surely the most "pointless" film of all time that actually goes nowhere. Awful to think how it would have been reviewed. DiCaprio.. you can not be blown away by that performance. Both himself and Brad Pitt acted their faces off. Tarantino brings the best out of them again here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado 1,710 Posted August 25, 2019 Author Share Posted August 25, 2019 On 17/08/2019 at 23:09, Rick said: It was an excellent film I thought. The portrayal of Bruce Lee was bizarre, but it still made me chuckle. Performance from DiCaprio was unreal. That man is something else. I wonder if there's some truth about that Bruce Lee portrayal? The fight scene had me howling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick 2,271 Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Machado said: I wonder if there's some truth about that Bruce Lee portrayal? The fight scene had me howling. Well after seeing the backlash on it, I had a little read up and it is a general agreement that Bruce Lee had an arrogant streak. So in true Quentin Tarantino fashion, it was dialed up to 100 for this. It didnt bother me all that much in hindsight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewolf 7,161 Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Machado said: I wonder if there's some truth about that Bruce Lee portrayal? The fight scene had me howling. Interestingly.... Since the release of the movie, several people have expressed concerns about how Lee is represented, some citing one rant where he says he’d make Muhammad Ali “a cripple.” Bruce Lee’s daughter, Shannon Lee, who told The Wrap, “It was really uncomfortable to sit in the theater and listen to people laugh at my father.” Lee continued, "What I’m interested in is raising the consciousness of who Bruce Lee was as a human being and how he lived his life… All of that was flushed down the toilet in this portrayal, and made my father into this arrogant punching bag.” Add one more voice to the mix: NBA all-timer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote a scathing op-ed in The Hollywood Reporter today about the situation. Abdul-Jabbar met Lee and became close with him when he was a UCLA student—even starring in the unfinished martial arts film, The Game of Death, together. In the op-ed, Abdul-Jabbar comes in pretty hot, arguing that any depiction of a real-life person—however outrageous it is—leaves a lasting impression of them in our culture. “That’s why filmmakers have a responsibility when playing with people’s perceptions of admired historic people to maintain a basic truth about the content of their character,” he wrote. “Quentin Tarantino’s portrayal of Bruce Lee in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does not live up to this standard. Of course, Tarantino has the artistic right to portray Bruce any way he wants. But to do so in such a sloppy and somewhat racist way is a failure both as an artist and as a human being.” Tarantino claimed that Lee was “kind of an arrogant guy.” He said that he didn’t make up the things he wrote in the script. “I heard him say things like that — to that effect. If people are saying, ‘Well he never said he could beat up Muhammad Ali,’ well yeah, he did. Not only did he say that, but his wife, Linda Lee, said that in her first biography I ever read…. She absolutely said it.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado 1,710 Posted August 25, 2019 Author Share Posted August 25, 2019 47 minutes ago, Bluewolf said: "But to do so in such a sloppy and somewhat racist way is a failure both as an artist and as a human being." I'd imagine Tarantino was the last white man on earth anyone would call a racist for obvious reasons, but apparently not. The fact that there are some people butt hurt about that scene makes me glad it's in there. His daughter wouldn't go defensive if Lee really wasn't an arrogant man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluewolf 7,161 Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Machado said: I'd imagine Tarantino was the last white man on earth anyone would call a racist for obvious reasons, but apparently not. The fact that there are some people butt hurt about that scene makes me glad it's in there. His daughter wouldn't go defensive if Lee really wasn't an arrogant man. On the flip side, imagine you were watching a portrayal of your father that people were laughing at in the cinema and didn't think it was a fair or accurate description of him or his life and I should imagine that maybe you might be the same.. I should imagine a lot of people would be.. Fair enough if that's how you believed the person to be through your experience but it's a bit easy to follow your own path in a film making sense and paint a picture for all the world to see that has no consequence because that person is no longer alive.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber nudge+ 15,325 Posted August 25, 2019 Subscriber Share Posted August 25, 2019 37 minutes ago, Machado said: The fact that there are some people butt hurt about that scene makes me glad it's in there. His daughter wouldn't go defensive if Lee really wasn't an arrogant man. I don't know, I personally would definitely go defensive (or rather go on an offensive to be fair) if I thought that someone portrayed my deceased father in a wrong way and made a parody out of him, especially considering that it was done on purpose in order to create controversy and make people talk about the movie aka make money. Also, I haven't seen the movie yet but did they really show Bruce Lee challenging and then getting his arse kicked by a random aging stuntman with no training played by Brad Pitt?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado 1,710 Posted August 25, 2019 Author Share Posted August 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Bluewolf said: On the flip side, imagine you were watching a portrayal of your father that people were laughing at in the cinema and didn't think it was a fair or accurate description of him or his life and I should imagine that maybe you might be the same.. I should imagine a lot of people would be.. Fair enough if that's how you believed the person to be through your experience but it's a bit easy to follow your own path in a film making sense and paint a picture for all the world to see that has no consequence because that person is no longer alive.. 16 minutes ago, nudge said: I don't know, I personally would definitely go defensive (or rather go on an offensive to be fair) if I thought that someone portrayed my deceased father in a wrong way and made a parody out of him, especially considering that it was done on purpose in order to create controversy and make people talk about the movie aka make money. Also, I haven't seen the movie yet but did they really show Bruce Lee challenging and then getting his arse kicked by a random aging stuntman with no training played by Brad Pitt?... The part in bold is an assumption and I don't agree with it. There is a context for Bruce Lee to be in the film if you watch it. He was very close friends with Sharon and gave her lessons for a film. Tarantino has no responsibility or moral obligation to portray Bruce Lee fairly. He's done it the way he wanted to, i.e. for entertainment, and frankly it worked spectacularly well. If by making money you mean create comedic value which improves the film's quality, then yes I think it was. No one would bat an eye if that scene was in The Simpsons as they make fun of everyone. It's comedy people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado 1,710 Posted August 25, 2019 Author Share Posted August 25, 2019 Btw, of course Brad Pitt would beat Bruce Lee. He used to have his own fight club in a restaurant basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber nudge+ 15,325 Posted August 26, 2019 Subscriber Share Posted August 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Machado said: The part in bold is an assumption and I don't agree with it. There is a context for Bruce Lee to be in the film if you watch it. He was very close friends with Sharon and gave her lessons for a film. Tarantino has no responsibility or moral obligation to portray Bruce Lee fairly. He's done it the way he wanted to, i.e. for entertainment, and frankly it worked spectacularly well. If by making money you mean create comedic value which improves the film's quality, then yes I think it was. No one would bat an eye if that scene was in The Simpsons as they make fun of everyone. It's comedy people. Yeah probably; I suppose it comes with artistic freedom. But then Bruce Lee's daughter and friends also have every right to feel hurt and conflicted about that portrayal which they feel is unfair and present an extremely distorted view of a person they knew thus affecting his legacy... By the way, how does the movie portray Polanski? I recall reading somewhere that Tarantino provided the script of the movie to a friend of Polanski so that he could assure him (Polanski) that "it's ok". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado 1,710 Posted August 26, 2019 Author Share Posted August 26, 2019 56 minutes ago, nudge said: Yeah probably; I suppose it comes with artistic freedom. But then Bruce Lee's daughter and friends also have every right to feel hurt and conflicted about that portrayal which they feel is unfair and present an extremely distorted view of a person they knew thus affecting his legacy... By the way, how does the movie portray Polanski? I recall reading somewhere that Tarantino provided the script of the movie to a friend of Polanski so that he could assure him (Polanski) that "it's ok". Yea although Polanski was the one to reach out for Tarantino. Quote “Look, when it comes to Roman Polanski we’re talking about a tragedy that would be unfathomable for most human beings,” Tarantino said. “I mean there’s Sharon, there’s his unborn son that literally lived without ever being born. That’s just a crazy sentence even to say. I felt that the story of her death, and the Manson tragedy had moved into legit history. So it actually is of historical importance beyond just his own personal tragedy. So I felt I was on OK grounds there. I didn’t want to call him and talk to him while I was writing it because I’m not going to ask him permission. I’m going to do it, all right? I don’t think he needed any anxiety and I didn’t need any anxiety as far as that was concerned.” Tarantino did not reach out to Polanski, but Polanski did reach out to Tarantino. According to the “Hollywood” writer-director, Polanski contacted him after production finished through a friend. “That friend called me and said, so what’s up with this? He said that Roman wasn’t mad,” Tarantino said. “He didn’t call up irate or anything. He was just curious. What is this?” Tarantino decided to bring the friend over to his house so he could read the “Hollywood” script and report back to Polanski. Polanski has been living in Europe since fleeing America after pleading guilty to statutory rape in 1977. To answer your question though, I don't recall the actor playing Polanski even having a line in the film. He's not a big deal in the film really. He just walks with Sharon Well, there is a character who makes a joke with a rather jealous tone about Sharon's type of men being "Cute, short talented guys who look like 12-year-old boys", which indirectly is a description of both Jay Sebring and Polanski. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgnisExcubitor 678 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 Watched this and it could easily have been 45 minutes shorter. I have to respect Tarantino who gives a middle finger to the traditional movie making rules in all this movies. I like how he makes long pointless (in terms of the overall plot) interactions between his characters interesting and enjoyable. The bits with Leo in some old movies wad cool. I liked what he did here with the Manson killings story. Leading us all to that moment, where we expected the bad things to happen. And then to spring in that surprise. Also, you cannot deny the similarities drawn between hippies and today's SJW crowd. It almost seems deliberate. As for the Bruce Lee debate. I can see why his daughter is angry and why the rest of China is too. Here in Asia we don't like our heroes being tarnished like this, unlike the west. Also, Gene Lebell's words on Lee should be taken seriously, and he only had nice words to say about Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machado 1,710 Posted January 6, 2020 Author Share Posted January 6, 2020 Won 3 categories on the golden globes. Best comedy/musical, best supporting actor (Brad Pitt), and best screenplay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick 2,271 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 7 hours ago, Machado said: Won 3 categories on the golden globes. Best comedy/musical, best supporting actor (Brad Pitt), and best screenplay. Thought it deserved the first two but the screenplay should have went to Marriage Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,203 Posted January 6, 2020 Share Posted January 6, 2020 I’ve not seen JoJo Rabbit or Dolemite Is My Name but it’s amazing how a film that really could have been cut to the last 40 minutes or so won an award. Deserved imo was Brad Pitt and that’s because him and Di Caprio essentially held together what was a pretty “meh” film all in all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas 3,825 Posted January 30, 2020 Share Posted January 30, 2020 Finally got round to seeing this last night. 100% agree with @Danny. Mediocre IMO. Bit like Hateful Eight in that its poor to basically the last 45mins to an hour where it all kicks off. I've no issue with slow burner films as long as there is a point to it. I felt this really didn't have one. I was looking forward to seeing the Manson story more intertwined but it wasn't which is probably why I felt a bit put out by it. For me, the only time I got interested was when Brad Pitt picked up Pussycat and drove her back to Manson's ranch. It was then the film started to grab me. The scenes at the ranch were quite tense, you felt shit was going to go down, proper creepy unnerving atmosphere. Best scenes in the film for me. As for the ending, obviously it went against the grain we all expected, but for me, I found it a little bit OTT. But then I guess you expect that from Tarantino. 5/10 for me. But then I think my disappointment came in the film not really making the Manson story as big a deal as I'd liked. That was what drew me in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.