MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > He had it in his hand, but dropped the b...

He had it in his hand, but dropped the ball. (QT)

posted 5 years ago by LTUM (1037)
20 replies | jump to latest

He played around the edges of it but didn't bite down, go further, dig in.

I'm talking about Rick Dalton.

THAT was what should have been the main thrust of the movie, which woulda given it what it needed, what we all feel is missing from it. The convos with Pitt driving away from the Pacino meeting struck the vein, but Quentin didn't let it play out. I understand he had the whole picture to paint, flesh out, with all the characters, in order to build the setup for the finale. Yes, I get that. But.....

IMO.....

Staying CLOSE IN on Rick Dalton's pain, inner struggle, woulda added just the right 'seasoning' to this film that woulda taken it over into classic status. The same way he did with Shoshanna in Basterds, Max in Jackie Brown, and others.

I don't think he could see this missing element because he had the whole huge ensemble to orchestrate, manage. So it's understandable.

But I left the movie wanting to know way more about Rick Dalton, and didn't really care at all about the Manson gang or any of that other stuff. Just saying.

Peace.

[–] Dan11111 (23) 5 years ago

I already went on at length about how Fucked up Quenton's Psyche is, so I will only say what I thought was the best part of the film - Dalton unable to hold back his tears when he received a compliment from an 8 year old.... I saw that scene prior, maybe in the trailer(?) but it is what made me think OK maybe I should give this a look.

[–] LTUM (1037) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] CheekyMonkey (584) 5 years ago

Yeah... that scene and knowing what DiCaprio is capable of, made me want to see this movie after the dissapointments that were Hateful Eight & Django...

I thought maybe Tarantino had grown up enough to allow for some kind of real drama in his films, as Dalton's character mirrored the change in old Hollywood, rather than just the spectacle of revenge porn...

Once Upon A Time is a good movie, far better than Tarantino's last 3 movies, but, I agree, Dalton's character was a missed opportunity...

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

Yeah... that scene and knowing what DiCaprio is capable of, made me want to see this movie after the dissapointments that were Hateful Eight & Django...

I thought maybe Tarantino had grown up enough to allow for some kind of real drama in his films, as Dalton's character mirrored the change in old Hollywood, rather than just the spectacle of revenge porn...

Once Upon A Time is a good movie, far better than Tarantino's last 3 movies, but, I agree, Dalton's character was a missed opportunity...

well said

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

I guess we saw a different movie. I think QT did a good job with both of the main characters. I would have liked to see more of Sharon Tate, because I liked the scenes with her but wanted more.

[–] LTUM (1037) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6398) 5 years ago

It did go somewhere. His angst reaches a high point in his trailer. He went back and forth with himself, Gollum-style. At that point he was teetering on the edge of a knife. In the end, his strength won out. He believed in himself, stepped back from the precipice and resolved to stride on, however bad things looked. He took advice he distrusted and went to Italy anyway, made four films, found a wife, made some cash and started turning things around for himself. It's a great story and a realistic story. What more could anyone want?

[–] Goliard (1421) 5 years ago

Agreed. So many people mistakenly equate "I didn't like what this story focused on" with "this story had an incorrect focus." Because a filmmaker didn't tell the tale YOU wanted doesn't mean there's a weakness in the script, or a "missed opportunity."

As a creator, you decide what story you want to tell, and you go about hitting that goal. At that point, the most reasonable judgement is how creatively/efficiently/closely they hew to the target.

Of course, if a particular story doesn't interest you, that's fine. But in no way does it mean there's a "flaw" in the filmmaker's process.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Love him or hate him(or, just, like him) Quentin Tarantino is one of the very few directors in Hollywood who writes his own stories -- and who has been given total license by the studios that hire him to write whatever story he wants to tell.

What remains interesting about OAITH is how -- if you took out the Manson scenes -- this would be an entire "non-violent movie" -- a first for QT.

And I think a lot of people wondered why QT didn't just stick with the interesting "human story" of Rick and Cliff and their struggles in Hollywood.

Well...QT knows two things, I think: (1) He is FAMOUS for violence and death, at least somewhere in every movie(like Hitchcock and Peckinpah before him, though Peckinpah made the "nice" Junior Bonner) and (2) The Manson Murders DID forever rock Hollywood "innocence" forever after their happening.

Its the story he wanted to tell...it kept the movie suspenseful ..we KNOW these characters are heading for confrontation with the Mansons...and it made the story at once tragic(because we know what REALLY happened to Sharon Tate) and exhilarating(because it was great to see it NOT happen, and to see those scummy Manson folk get killed, at least in fantasy.)

All from the mind of QT, with the help of several of the biggest stars in...Hollywood.

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

As a creator, you decide what story you want to tell, and you go about hitting that goal. At that point, the most reasonable judgement is how creatively/efficiently/closely they hew to the target.

ummm, okay. I'll bite. tell me what the goal was. lmfao

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

--edited--

(and you should be glad it was)

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

It did go somewhere. His angst reaches a high point in his trailer. He went back and forth with himself, Gollum-style. At that point he was teetering on the edge of a knife. In the end, his strength won out. He believed in himself, stepped back from the precipice and resolved to stride on, however bad things looked. He took advice he distrusted and went to Italy anyway, made four films, found a wife, made some cash and started turning things around for himself. It's a great story and a realistic story. What more could anyone want?

good points. in a way. but all the side stories etc detracted from the leo storyline. he shoulda stayed with leo the whole way. and moreover, most of the leo story points you mentioned weren't really developed in the film, but were delivered in narration using voiceover, in one montage sequence. i think it'd been better had he developed that whole story line in the movie proper, and ditched some of the superfluous sub plots. just my opinion

put it this way... i left the movie wanting more of leo's story, and less of the barefoot bitches at the ranch

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6398) 4 years ago

The name of the movie is not The Rick Dalton Story. It's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. It's a story about the whole milieu at that time, not just a simple tale about one character; it doesn't advertise itself as that.

I don't think it's fair to criticize a movie for this. If QT tried to do something and failed at it, fine. But what you suggest was in no way what he was trying to do. You don't want him to have made it better;you want some other movie entirely. Go make your own movie in that case. Or stick to movies from the 50s.

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

You are right. He doesn't (can't) make the kind of movie I referred to. My mistake.

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

I got the feeling it had no idea what it wanted to be. Was it a serious drama about actors struggling with their careers? Was it a biopic about the Tate murders? Was it a black comedy? Was it an exploitation movie? A western? In the end it was QT’s usual scatterbrained approach where it goes everywhere but hits no where. He had some serious scenes that pulled at the emotions like when Cliff leaves Rick, but then it undoes it all with the slapstick violent ending. It felt like he was going for one half Kill Bill ridiculousness and other half slow period piece.

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

I got the feeling it had no idea what it wanted to be.

totally agree

[–] AP (5288) 4 years ago

I have to disagree. We see Dalton making a comeback in that Western, beating his demons, and then going on to work in Italy. I felt satisfied with the arc and didn’t feel anymore needed to be said.

Although I understand if you wanted to get rid of the Manson stuff. It wasn’t important to the narrative.

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

you probably didn't read through this thread, but I pointed out above that the whole arc you refer to was delivered via montage, using voice over. so IMO it doesn't really count the same as it would had it been filmed and mined out through full scenes. so I get what you are saying, that technically the character was developed and arced, but still imo it coulda been done more fully. my .02

[–] AP (5288) 4 years ago

I read the whole thread. There is a brief montage about his Italian movies but I think the climax of his story was the Western. Going off to work in Italy was an epilogue. If the movie simply ended with him getting on a plane to work in Italy, I would have been just as happy.

[–] LTUM (1037) 4 years ago

I just reread my own op here, after fielding some of you guys' replies. My post wasn't unreasonable at all, and was respectful of the film. Never said I didn't like it. Just made some observations and posed a conjecture, one that was complimentary btw. But I guess some of you guys couldn't see that? Perhaps too busy staring into your mirrors.

Some of the fanboy replies here are telling. QT's gonna get chaffed if you guys don't ease up soon.