Little pay off in the end.. - Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

SPOILERS

The guy with messed-up teeth whom Pitt beat up wasn't the same guy who came with the girls to kill Pitt, Leo, et al. The man who came was based on the real-life "Tex Watson."

The dog did a LOT of it...but Brad ultimately jammed the knife back into Tex's thigh and stomped on his neck unto death. Brad threw the dog food can into the one woman's face(disabling her) and then smashed the other woman's face into pulp , unto death. The doggie helped -- and neutralized Tex's gun -- but Brad finished the job with two out of three.

As for the third -- well, that's what made it funny. Brad "delivered" to Leo a woman with a bashed-in face who was pretty easy to finish off with a flame thrower. Cliff Booth does the dirty work and Rick Dalton gets the credit.

PS. I think one cares more about the villains that get killed if one realizes how horrible they were in real life -- stabbing a near-term pregnant woman to death, killing other people horribly.

reply

[–] dineshdrata (17) 5 years ago

Again. buildup and payoff. buildup and payoff. When Hans Landa, or Clavin Candie, or Stephen get their come uppance its because they have a whole movie (or half or 1/4 of a movie) of character development for me to get invested and care.

When Hans Gruber dies it has stakes and build up. when henchman #8 dies it has little impact..

these people were henchmen/woman #3, 4 and 5. Who cares.

its really basic filmmaking. Which Tarintino is normally a master of

reply

[–] dineshdrata (17) 5 years ago

You were right about the guy who came with the women, which actually makes it eve worse......

This is an alternative reality, those things never happened in this story. so again, who cares???

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Well, I must admit that I have "grappled" with this movie since I saw it(I like it better than you, but had my issues) and I suppose it comes down to:

Could this story have "worked" if the Mansons never entered into it?

Move the whole story back to 1967/1968 and you could tell the part about Rick and Cliff with little change -- the end is that they have to split up over Rick's marriage.

But you would have to lose not only the Mansons , but Sharon Tate as a "comparative character.'

And suddenly, quite frankly, a movie just about Rick and Cliff likely isn't "big enough." And for QT, something unheard of-- a movie without violence.

I think that this one may appeal better to an older generation who knows who those three people were that Cliff and Rick killed -- they were meant to be Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, and Patricia Krenwinkel. In real life, they got death penalities that were switched to life sentences. I think Tex is still alive today in prison. I hope he was shown this movie.

And two generations of us HATED those people, and knew exactly what they did -- stabbed a pregnant woman and others one night, killed an " arbitrary" married couple at their home the next night(leaving a knife in the man's belly) --so we knew what kind of villains they were.

By the way, the two women are in the group at the Manson ranch -- Cliff recognizes them later, but I don't think we remember them. But they are there.

As to these things not happening well..that's the point of the movie. Its for us to accept or reject.

reply

[–] Kowalski (77085) 5 years ago

A LOT OF YOUNGER PEOPLE DONT EVEN KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE MANSON MURDERS...TARANTINO HAS GIVEN THESE PEOPLE THE END THEY DESERVED WHILE ALLOWING OTHERS TO SURVIVE,TAKING A BIT OF THE POWER AWAY FROM THE ACTS..ITS ALMOST LIKE A TRIBUTE.

reply

[–] dineshdrata (17) 5 years ago

I agree. and you could argue the same for DJango with slaves and inglorious with jews. unfortunately it being. tribute dos not equal a good movie. which is my contention.

reply

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 5 years ago

Ok what you argue is correct, but the whole movie does not exist if you don't know the real history.
And if you do know it, there's no way you won't consider that an awesome payoff.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21603) 5 years ago

The pay off is also the results of stopping the Manson murderers. The obvious is, of course, Sharon Tate, her unborn child and her friends are spared. Rick Dalton’s career will now blossom as he falls in with Tate, and more importantly, Roman Polanski. It’s also quite possible that the late 60’s era in Hollywood will now live on a bit longer, rather than taking a dark turn in the wake of Manson murders.

reply

[–] dineshdrata (17) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dineshdrata (17) 5 years ago

Payoffs are not normally well now instead ", Sharon Tate, her unborn child and her friends are spared. Rick Dalton’s career will now blossom as he falls in with Tate, and more importantly, Roman Polanski."

alternative realities and "what if" now after left to our imagination..

A character trains, he uses that skill to stop the baddie. A horrible character shows us what he can do, why he is crazy, and the good guy stops him and he dies in the end.

Also historical "what if" and "alternative reality" is not a substitute for film character developement.

I always go back to Hans Landa cause its a perfect example. We know he was a Nazi SS officer so we know he was bad. Tarantino didn't end it there. He developed the character further. so we actually CARE. I get you cared because you know all the history or the specific character involved. But when watching film, my job isnt to do a history lesson prior. its for the film making to build characters.

I know this may have been tough with those involved in the Manson murders... he didn't want to humanize them or probably even give them any development..

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I know this may have been tough with those involved in the Manson murders... he didn't want to humanize them or probably even give them any development..

---

I think that's key. One thing to remember is that Manson and his killers, in addition to being heartless knife slashing murderers...were publicity hounds. Manson posed for a famous "crazed face" photograph which was really the action of an incorrigible ham. And the killers turned their trial into a circus...and actually had some crazed fans.

So all these years later, QT makes a movie "about" the Manson family, which isn't really about them at all. He makes fun of their hammy histrionics. In the final version, Charlie only gets that one small scene at the house. (A longer version is on the deleted scenes on the DVD.)

QT chooses (1) to barely show the Mansons and (2) to treat them with utter contempt -- as criminals, as morons, as trash.

Its a good feeling.

Moreover, we get a pretty good glimpse at the mentality of some of them: (1) The girl Pitt picks up(pretty, but borderline insane); (2) Squeaky Fromme(a mean, dead-eyed enforcer); and the three killers in the car at the end(murderous, merciless -- just begging to get offed by Brad and Leo.)

reply

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I always go back to Hans Landa cause its a perfect example. We know he was a Nazi SS officer so we know he was bad. Tarantino didn't end it there. He developed the character further. so we actually CARE.

---

And Chris Waltz won an Oscar, deservedly.

But actually HIS ending was less satisfying than the ending doled out to the three Manson killers here.

Brad Pitt doesn't KILL Hans. He just carves a swastika on his forehead. Painful in the moment, but I can picture Hans Landa wearing low brimmed hats and make-up on his forehead for years to come in America-- alive.

Brad shoulda killed Hans like he killed them Manson punks..

reply

[–] RickGee (265) 5 years ago

Leo BBQs that women (who he has no clue who or what she did) just cause...
----------------------------------
As I recall, she came running out of the house screaming like a banshee and firing a weapon.

And people who read a lot about the Manson family know what monsters they were and there was no need to tell us that in the movie.

reply

[–] Grimace788 (269) 5 years ago

I agree with your assessment about the bad guys. I was familiar with the manson killers before I saw the movie so I knew who they were and what they were up to. I imagine that there are a lot of younger people who don't know the details and the movie did literally nothing to inform them. If you didn't know the backstory before watching the movie then you watched three almost completely undeveloped characters try to kill a guy for yelling at them because they were too loud driving down his street at night. Before that we only saw them at the ranch where we learned that they were bad people but really nothing else.

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3088) 5 years ago

On your first point. I did find Leo's character's reaction to be bizarre. He had no idea what was happening at that point and his immediate reaction to a screaming, injured crazy woman in his pool with no real context is to grab a flame thrower and torch her alive instead of calling the police? Made very little since

reply

[–] RickGee (265) 5 years ago

Considering she came racing out of the house screaming like a maniac and firing a gun, I think his action was quite appropriate (though the flame thrower was hilariously over the top).

reply

[–] Threadkiller (3088) 5 years ago

Of course we as the audience can see that it was ultimately justified because we knew her gang's murderous intentions but he had absolutely no context of the situation. For all he knew she could have accidentally stumbled on to his property, hysterical & visibly injured perhaps from defending herself, wildly firing a few wild shots in a clear state of hysterics. It would have been one thing if he was defending himself from immediate danger but that wasn't the case. Securing himself inside and calling the police would have been a lot more sensible.

reply

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

I thought the movie was great until the ending. The whole is spent building up to some incredible turn of events, and all we get are our cultists getting taken out by a pair of failed actors due to their own incompetence. The film kept building up to something big then was some Deus Ex machina b.s.

reply

[–] Rolltide (964) 5 years ago

The last scene was all wrong and disappointing. People love the outrageous outcome and no innocents died. I just don't think it was thought through properly.

1. The dog. Tex knew there was a dog because as he was walking up to the door the dog barked one time. In the scene they act as if they did not even notice the dog on the couch. I would have had Tex aiming the gun at the dog and the Cliff throwing the can of food at his face. Then have the dog light into Tex.

2. Sadie. Aka Susan Atkins. Cliff would not have had the reaction time to wind up and throw the can at her. Because she only weighs 100 lbs he needs no help. So cliff stops her attack, puts the knife into her and then promptly snaps her neck like a twig.

3. Katie aka Patricia Krenwinkel waits way too conveniently long to attack Cliff. She hits him hard enough to sink that knife fairly deep into his hip. What if she had went after his neck or back? They show Francesca punching her and knocking her down to explain her preoccupation but that would have only thrown the nut into a rage and caused Francesca to be attacked. Think about it you are drugged up, your adrenaline is raging. You are there to brutally murder people. Some chick punches you in the face and you do nothing to her? They should have shown her fleeing in fear to the patio after seeing Tex and Sadie killed. Then after a brief struggle with Rick he gets her with the flame thrower.

I still totally love the movie.

reply

[–] Kowalski (77085) 5 years ago

IN THE REAL WORLD...VIOLENCE IS USUALLY DISJOINTED AND SENSELESS...

reply

[–] Rolltide (964) 5 years ago

You got the senseless part right.

reply

[–] Kowalski (77085) 5 years ago

I GOT THE WHOLE THING RIGHT...IVE HAD THE BAD LUCK TO BE INVOLVED IN SOME VIOLENT EXCHANGES...EVERYTHING PLAYS OUT TOO SLOW/TOO FAST...ODD PAUSES,WEIRD COMMENTS...YOUR BRAIN SHUTS DOWN...JUST BLOOD AND INSTINCT.

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21603) 5 years ago

I agree. All comments about what people would have really done in a life or death situation in a movie are ridiculous. The fact is some people freeze up, get tunnel vision, loose small motor function or even forget to breathe when the shit hits the fan.

reply

[–] Rolltide (964) 5 years ago

So being hit in the face with a 16 oz can of food at 75 miles an hour would cause you to scream uncontrollably for 15 minutes?

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (21603) 5 years ago

Yes. It could if you had a panic attack because of the situation or pain.

reply

[–] Rolltide (964) 5 years ago

Sadie's(Susan Atkins) actions make no sense. You get hit in the face with a 16 oz can of food at 75 miles an hour you do not start screaming like a wild animal. A blow like that might have knocked her unconscious at the least stunned her in which she would have not been verbal at all. Then after the dog lets her go she continues to scream and runs(She's blind?) through the patio door. There she totally out of control and screaming the whole time shoots the gun into the air. What?

People realize that Sadie at the moment she gets that gun can off every single person in that house easily! Cliff is passed out. She can just shoot him in the head. She then goes to the bedroom and shoots Francesca and the dog. After writing PIG in somebody's blood she washes up a bit and heads out the front door never noticing Rick is there. Rick obviously cannot hear gun shots so he does not notice until he comes back into his house to find his wife, best friend and 2 strangers dead.

Notice that Rick only acts concerned about his wife AFTER he is done torching Sadie a woman he could have handled with his bare hands?

reply

[–] Rolltide (964) 5 years ago

Not to be mean but if you do not notice the difference between Clem and Tex you are not paying attention. In real life both are murderers. Clem once murdered a stunt man at the ranch.

Crazy as these people were it would have been fun to be a guy in that cult. there were at least 5 girls for each guy and most of what they did was have sex and do drugs.

reply