OT: Once a Upon a Time in Hollywood

[Guest]

Watched the movie ... actually thought it was well done.  It was very long, but didn’t take away from the movie like many long ones do.

Although the theme was certainly for mature audiences, I was surprised for a QT movie that it seemed pretty tame compared to what it could have been. 

The ending was different ... but I was bracing for the more violent truth.  

Cast was very good I thought. 

[Guest]

Actually enjoyed it though I'm not much of a Tarantino fan.   I'm a sucker for happy endings though and knew it had one going in.  

As for Hollywood fictionalizing history, that's what Hollywood does.    Recently watched Midway, enjoyed it more than the one they made back in the 70's.   Mostly for the battle effects, the dive bombing especially.   As drama the acting and plot were nothing gripping but the history pretty much provided a great story on it's own.  

I also just re-watched Amadeus after like 35 years, wasn't as good as I remembered--granted I remembered almost nothing after that long..   And in reading up on Mozart learned it was pure fiction in many respects, according to historians.  But it was a big hit at the time because... that's what Hollywood does.

[Guest]

Anyone watched Death of Stalin(Netflix), another history farce,  Buscemi, Palen and Tambor keep it interesting and moving along at a jaunty pace.  Screenplay is an adaptation of the comic book account.

[Guest]

@comet52 said:
Actually enjoyed it though I'm not much of a Tarantino fan.   I'm a sucker for happy endings though and knew it had one going in.  

As for Hollywood fictionalizing history, that's what Hollywood does.    Recently watched Midway, enjoyed it more than the one they made back in the 70's.   Mostly for the battle effects, the dive bombing especially.   As drama the acting and plot were nothing gripping but the history pretty much provided a great story on it's own.  

I also just re-watched Amadeus after like 35 years, wasn't as good as I remembered--granted I remembered almost nothing after that long..   And in reading up on Mozart learned it was pure fiction in many respects, according to historians.  But it was a big hit at the time because... that's what Hollywood does.

It's what all storytellers do. One of my favorite movies based on history is 13 Days. The main character, Kenny O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner, was a real person, but he had nowhere near that big a role in reality. You craft a sympathetic central character in order to illuminate the important historical figures around him--JFK, Bobby, McNamara. It's nothing new. Shakespeare did the same thing with his histories. All of them are just wildly inaccurate historically. 

QT goes a step further. He doesn't want you to get lost in the story, to get comfortable. He wants you to know you're experiencing "art" and not reality. He's almost Bertolt Brecht-like in that. Pretty sure that's why he so often uses those ridiculously big chapter graphics. 

[Guest]

@purplefaithful said:
I loved a beautiful day in the neighborhood if everyone is looking for something a little more wholesome. 

Fred Rogers was an awesome individual. 

I heard that Mr. Rodgers was QT's next project