Articles, Blog

Does Once Upon a Time in Hollywood Cross The Line? | The Big Picture

Hey! In case you didn’t read the beginning, today’s
show is about the new Quentin Tarantino movie and it has spoilers in it – if you haven’t seen
the movie and/or don’t want to know the big twisty stuff yet… this ain’t the episode
to watch right now. Last warning. Okay! Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is the new hit
movie from Quentin Tarantino and, as expected, it came with some controversy – but unlike
literally everything he’s made before this time… In fact, right up until it’s not Once Upon
A Time In Hollywood is (graded on a “curve” against the other Tarantino films) probably
his “tamest” work in terms of content: Not as much colorful profanity, not as much
violence (though there is some) much more drama than action and much more long atmospheric
“people driving classic cars around late-60s Los Angeles listening to classic rock” wordless
stretches to balance out the banter – plus, most of the obligatory obscure movie references
are integrated much more organically than usual because it takes place in the film
industry of the past directly. So instead, this time what’s gotten people
into an uproar and choosing up sides is less about the visual content than it is the narrative content
– specifically the fact that the film not only takes place in the past but during a
very specific period, intersects with the lives of several prominent real-life figures
of that period and (remember, I did warn you about spoilers) that it gradually reveals
itself to be a work of alternative-historical fiction… in other words, that the “Once
Upon A Time” in the title isn’t just there to be cute. Set primarily during three specific days spread
across 1968 and 1969, the main character is Leonardo DiCaprio’s “Rick Dalton,” a
once-famous TV cowboy actor who, largely because of the changing tastes in style and leading-men,
is having difficulty in transitioning to the big screen as anything other than a typecast
B-movie tough-guy increasingly reliant both on and offscreen on the backup of his best
friend and stunt double; Brad Pitt’s “Cliff Booth” – an veteran possessed of near-superhuman
physical abilities and shady past. Rick also happens to be living next door to
Margot Robbie as real-life actress Sharon Tate, here as in reality a rising next-big-thing
star hot off the success of Valley Off the Dolls, wife of then-celebrated young filmmaker
Roman Polanski and essentially a walking symbol of the hip, cool new Hollywood Rick is desperate
to ascend to but clearly was not meant to be a true part of. Other real-life figures of the time either
appear as supporting characters or get name-checked, including Steve McQueen, Bruce Lee, various
fixtures of the Italian exploitation film business… Oh! …and also of course Charles Manson and
“The Manson Family” – the deranged cult L.A.-area transient grifters squatting on
the dilapidated movie ranch where actors like Rick and Cliff once worked and who, in the
real-life version of events, attained terrible infamy with the home invasion murders of Tate,
her unborn child and several others at their home in 1969; an event which shocked the nation
and is often framed by pop-history as both the moment where American culture turned hard
against the 60s “Flower Children” demographic (Manson wasn’t actually a “hippie” of
course, he was a white-supremacist with a delusional fantasy of staging murders to trigger
an apocalyptic race war – but that’s another show…) and also sometimes as the official
“point of no return” for the traditional Hollywood studio and star-system mystique
– i.e. the spectacle of a young actress viewed by many as the next big All-American “it
girl” movie star dying in so horrible a fashion amid the general collapse of interest
in traditional studio star-driven movies of the time. But in Once Upon A Time’s version of history
– that’s not what happens. Instead, the Manson Family killers get distracted
on their way to the Tate house by recognizing Rick from TV and decide it’d be more interesting
to kill a TV cowboy instead… and Cliff (who, earlier in the film, had encountered The Family
at the ranch and knows what they’re about) or at lest suspect such, basically beats them to death with his bare
hands because he’s a roughneck antihero with a potentially-dark past played by Brad
Pitt in a Quentin Tartantino movie and Rick is… not those things, but he does own a flamethrower. The killings are thwarted, Tate and her friends
survive without even having to find out that they were ever in danger in the first place and it turns out
they’re fans of Rick’s, implicitly winning him access to continued life in the Hollywood
A-list after all. Happy ending! …I mean, maybe? Charles Manson himself is technically still
out there and we never do find out if Cliff is actually guilty of the bad thing he may
or may not have done in his past – but, Tarantino movie. Anyway! As you might gather, once critics and early
audiences were done picking their jaws up from the surprise finish, many began to question
whether or not using real-life murders for a twist like this is in incredibly poor taste
– particularly considering the uniquely misogynistic brutality of Tate’s butchering and Tarantino’s
not exactly tactful history with violence against women as a plot device. It’s an interesting an uncomfortable question
that I’m not sure really has an objective answer – especially since these “alternate-history”
what-if takes are where Tarantino’s extremely latent talent for something like introspective
self-critique tends to come up. One could argue that it’s gauche to appropriate
real world tragedy for what amounts to a happy-ending revenge fantasy, an argument that was in fact
made about both Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds – both of which
carried the additional concern of appropriation i.e. what claim does Quentin Tarantino – a
white writer/director originally from Knoxville, Tennessee – have imagining historic revenge
fantasies for crimes against Black and Jewish people? On the other hand one could just as easily
argue that such persons have greater claim to say whether or not the appropriation is
in fact offensive or even appropriative in the first place: Tarantino’s “interesting”
relationship adjacent to Black American movie culture is already practically its own entire
field of film study, and he himself was so (uncharacteristically) concerned about possibly
crossing a line in Basterds that he consulted on specific aspects with Jewish colleague
and star Eli Roth and his family – with Roth’s father Sheldon eventually penning an editorial
for the Jewish Journal comparing the film’s use of historic fanaticism to the “Emotional
History” of Biblical recitation at Passover. In that context, one might look to Tate’s
sister Debra, who was consulted on the making of Once Upon A Time and has been very approving
of the film over all; particularly Robbie’s performance as her sister and Tarantino’s decision to
focus on her day-to-day ordinary life instead of celebrity encounters or work along with
extricating her completely from the murders – which was apparently the deliberate point
i.e. a righting-of-wrongs fantasy that doesn’t simply let her survive but also prevents The
Manson Murders from overwhelming, becoming or even touching her story so that Sharon
Tate’s life can be about her life again; an approach of… I mean, let’s be honest – disconcerting maturity from Quentin Tarantino, from a certain point of view. Then again, the flip side of that is that
while Tate is no longer a dead body in the history of August 8-9, 1969; she’s also
no longer a central figure of the story – instead it becomes the story of two fictional cowboy
heroes (and a dog) who “save the day” by violently slaughtering three almost hilariously
outmatched attackers – two of which are much younger women. And while there’s a compelling magnanimity
in the idea of Tarantino (at least symbolically) returning agency to this alternate-timeline
version of Tate, this also feels like a happy ending for him: In this timeline, The Mansons
don’t get to taint the idyllic if cheesy Los Angeles vibe of then six year-old Tarantino’s
youth… …and instead of signaling The End For Real
of a Hollywood where Old School Movie Heroes like Rick Dalton could be the stars (driving
them into the wilderness of Spaghetti Westerns and B-movies where they’d become cult-icons
to be loved and eventually resurrected by nostalgic Gen-X ironists like Quentin Tartantino
– in case this was all too subtle) two guys like that save the day, potentially meaning
an entirely different pop-culture history. One perhaps more preferable to Tarantino’s sensibility. Plus, if one takes Tate’s sister’s word
as close to definitive, then similar consideration ought go to the wife and daughter of the late
Bruce Lee, who’ve criticized the late martial-arts legend’s depiction in the film (from a story
and character perspective, while praising the performance of actor Mike Moh in the role). Lee appears in two flashback scenes in Once Upon A Time, one based in reality where he trains Sharon Tate in
kung-fu for her fight scene in the The Wrecking Crew, and another made up for the
film where he and Cliff have an impromptu sparring match several years before the main
storyline on the set of The Green Hornet after Cliff takes exception to Lee’s claim that
he could defeat heavyweight champ Cassius Clay (then not yet named Muhammed
Ali) in fight. In the scene, where Lee first comes off as
a cocky, self-assured showman, he at first easily knocks Cliff down but then gets thrown
himself after they start throwing hands – with the fight effectively being stopped in a draw
by show producers before we can find out who would’ve actually won. (According to Mike Moh himself, he had the
same concerns but was of the opinion and acted the scene in the context that his Lee would
have won the next round). Obviously, given the literally god-like status
Bruce Lee holds in the martial-arts community and pop-culture in general, a lot of fans were
unhappy to see him depicted as anything other than unbeatable (which is clearly the point
– using audience’s cultural foreknowledge of Bruce Lee as a force of nature to establish
Cliff’s nearly-superhuman physicality for later) which also feels like a deliberate
flex by Tarantino – you can feel his encyclopedic film-nerd excitement at the chance to correct
people that, “Ya’ know, well actually guys at that point in his career even Lee would later say he
was too hotheaded and didn’t always win – he was only two years out from demonstrating
the One-Inch Punch for the first time in the Americas in public and the fight with Wong Jack Man, had only been about that much time in the past he hadn’t yet opened the Jun Fan Gung Fu Institute or developed Jeet Kune Do, yet he wouldn’t even become
a superstar in Hong Kong for another five years! So, ya’ know.” “Violence is everywhere in our society, ya’ know it’s like even in breakfast cereal man.” [groovy beach music playing] Film writer Walter Chaw; however, writing
for Vulture, describes enjoying the film as a serious fan of Lee’s personally invested
in portrayals of Asian men in mainstream film – and that while he understands the Lee family’s
objections (especially given that many audiences and critics have mischaracterized Moh’s
spot-on replication of Lee’s outsized mannerisms and screen-affect as a kind of parody) he
views the portrayal as similar to that of Robbie’s Tate: Re-humanizing a pop-culture
figure whom history has transformed into something of unknowable, untouchable icon. (Chaw also notes the apparently true fact
that, prior to the capture and confession of the Manson Family, Lee’s self propagated “superhuman” image was so pervasive even in Hollywood that Roman Polanski briefly suspected him of having
committed the Tate house multiple-murders himself – which is much more bizarre than anything
present in Once Upon A Time.) …Yeah. Kinda heavy stuff! Like I said, this is tough because it’s
hard to have a fair definitive answer: I don’t find either of the big historical flights
of fancy in the film to be morally objectionable, and I’m not trying to push you listeners in one direction or the other, but I understand why others do, and I recognize
no standing to say either of the opinions of family members in this case are right or
wrong in their view. This is why historical fiction is always hard
to parse critically, because it forces us to confront how much we take for granted with
“normal” history narratives in film in general – but people should be able to hash these things out and have disagreements about it without it descending into an all-out war. And, this time because it’s about story, and content, and history and interpretations rather than onscreen violence or onscreen sex it seems to be mostly civil. That at least is a nice change. I’m Bob and that’s The Big Picture.


  1. Jared Corbett Author

    So you're mad because a creative director who creates amazing works of insane fiction, your mad that Tarantino is intelligent and knows it? This entire video is idiotic

  2. Jared Corbett Author

    "they had two men and a dog beat three women in a one sided fight"

    They were murderers they don't get to play the weak women card and neither do you

  3. Rey Author

    I was waiting for you address the whole "Quentin redefines Polanski to the public as someone who wasn't a pedophile" kinda like how Straight out of Compton didn't mention Dre's abuse of women. That's pretty much everyone's whole point. Also gruesomely murdering the girls as if it's enjoyable.

  4. Hatts Harbringer Author

    They gave margot robbie nothing to do, all her scenes were just her walking around saying hi. A waste of a good actress, if her scenes were cut from the movie nobody would know they were suposed to be there.

  5. Hatts Harbringer Author

    I thought Tarintino's movies were supposed to be in bad taste, they're always violent for entertainment. The fact that it was somewhat based in reality about a murder that happened forever ago, doesn't really matter to anyone.

  6. David T. Smith Author

    I once saw Jackie Chan being interviewed by Charlie Rose on his PBS show talking about the Bruce Lee Mystique as he saw it. Jackie basically said that he got the part of an extra in Bruce's film because he "fell down good." He also mentioned that when he auditioned, Bruce was surrounded by "yes-men in suits." I interpreted that as "Bruce hired talented stuntmen in front of the camera and suited yes-men behind the camera for the same reason: to make him look good. After seeing the "fight scene" in this movie that ticked off the Lee family, I was thinking of Jackie Chan's assessment and it fit in with what Jackie said in my opinion. Yes Bruce was a legend but even legends are made, not born.

  7. Vlaka Author

    Margot Robbie looks fine. Now that I know the fate of Tate in this might eventually watch it.
    Have to say you ruined it by bringing in feminism / misogyny for no real reason

  8. dustin whaley Author

    When i seen this video pop up on my sub list i was shocked. Shocked i was still subbed to this skid mark of a channel and after that review? Ill make sure to fix that.

    Fuck you blob.

  9. Leviathon672015 Author

    I'm going to be completely honest here, I had absolutely no idea that scruffy hippie-looking guy was supposed to be Charles Manson. I think I either took a bathroom break at that point and completely missed the reveal as they were rolling up to the house, or wasn't paying attention during the ranch scene and just never connected that this was supposed to include real life events. I'm also unfamiliar with the Charles Manson murders other than the part about starting a race war and so never connected any of this together. I seriously thought this was just a really fun, really dark action-drama with an excessively violent ending.

    Edit: And now I come to learn that the scruffy guy wasn't actually Charles Manson. There is so much I don't know about this movie.

  10. Man of Action Author

    I saw this movie last night. … It was damn cool. Terentino really put together a Sunset Bvd homage to Hollywood dead nuts set in the late 60s… holy shit was the camera work and solid writing enough toput this in Terentino's Magna Opus territory…

  11. ArmchairGravy Author

    I think this is one of the most ageist films I've ever seen. If you are over 50, you'll get it. If you're younger you may not. It really makes a difference in the tension level if you understand who Sharon Tate was. I was fully expecting to see Tarantino do the Manson murders. Instead we got Tarantino murdering the Manson family. Also, Mannix! insert theme song here

  12. Viewtiful Joe Author

    Spoiler The only thing that doesn't make sense is the nazis getting torched in the WW2 movie. Unfortunately that was a snuff film because we see later in the film the flamethrower is real.

  13. ren mcmanus Author

    There's an old saying "never meet your hero's" it's is because they can never really live up to your idea of them and there for you may lose your love of them. But this is becoming a horrible problem now people like Bruce Lee are idolized to the point of not even being human. His mistakes are not only to be forgiven but forgotten and never spoken of. Nothing he ever did was really all that bad and even bringing it up is now slander. On the other side if some one of note dose only one bad thing now it must never be forgiven or forgotten. A great example of this is the crapy things that the nostalgia critic did when he was the main controler of channel awesome. Should he be forgiven of what he did? no not really but in the following time after it was revealed entire YouTube channels have aperared dedicated to discrediting ever last thing he ever did. The point in trying to get across (poorly) is that at this point in time everything is treated as either for or against everything elts. This is an will continue to foster hate. Every politition is either a saint or the devil there is no gray. It's funny is it not? All the fighting to prove that everything is a spectrum. And yet all I hear and read on the Internet is absolute arguments with no room for humans.

  14. tsartomato Author

    there are no lines

    especially since EVERY yankeestan movie claiming to be based on anything historical is a racist parody whic doesn't respect its subject

  15. Caleb Roitz Author

    Thank you, Bob, for saying thoughtful things about thoughtful things. It’s refreshing in a total sense of the word. I’ve been a fan for such a long time and love all the content from then till now. Good luck! Keep doing what you do. Love to the fans, peace out

  16. James Appleby Author

    The problem of the Lee depiction is not that he looses, its that they show him like a douchey moron. Tate gets to become a human being, Lee gets to become a punchline.

  17. Jacob E Author

    You're totally over analyzing this. He didn't cross the line at all. All you're arguments about it crossing the line is honestly just being super sensitive.

  18. Mark Russell Author

    What I like most about this film is the portrail of the two protagonists. Both DeCaprio and Pitts characters seem more human than their comparable counterparts, which makes the historical leaps much more believable.

  19. 66Snuffleupagus Author

    QT's thing is starting to be meh. I get it but I don't care about movie making enough for these things to grab me. I just watch them to keep up with everyone. Like a job.

  20. Finkster5 Author

    I just have a bit of an issue with a movie that totally romanticizes a time period while completely condemning and demonizing a social movement/subculture, without acknowledging any of the things that they were fighting for. I think the message of the film is pretty clear: "the hippies sucked and they ruined the 60s. If they hadn't, good ol' tough guys like Cliff would still be around/be successful". The only 'hippies' we ever see however are murderous Masonites though, and the movie totally ignores the civil rights movement, Vietnam, etc. and doesn't give them a single positive/normal portrayal. Just because some "hippies"–and for the record most people from a group like that don't give themselves the name, that's how other people label them–just sat around and got high doesn't mean none of them did anything important.

  21. OneCalledChuck Author

    I can't be bothered watching any more of Tarantino's revenge fantasy porn. I imagine he'd really rather be doing some ultraviolent snuff films, but it's hard to get other people's money to invest in it to pay for the high production values he demands.

  22. MariaVosa Author

    My biggest problem with the revision was that in IG, the Jewish resistance fighters get to kill Hitler, in Django an African-American gets revenge on the plantation owners – but in OUATH it's NOT TATE getting revenge. It's two middle aged, arguably successful and priviliged white men. It's incongruous and slightly distasteful.

  23. fartzinwind Author

    It's the same universe that Hitler died watching a propaganda movie in.. So if you weren't already aware that it's not our world, that's your fault

  24. countzero87 Author

    I literally yelled "YAAAAAAS!!!" when cliff chucked that can can of dog food at that manson chicks face and the rest of the theatre was with me. I honestly think what happened to tex and those two twits in the film was the best possible outcome. the real would versions of those assholes deserved every skull crunching, ball ripping second of that and it felt great to watch.

  25. cobrakingofeart Author

    it's finally happened. the left called so many people white supremacists who weren't that i honestly can't tell if bob is right about manson or just trying to put 2 enemy groups under 1 umbrella.

  26. Skinnzy NZ Author

    who cares its a movie, Tarantino doesn't care if you cry about it not being real that's the point of film making to create interesting stories not documentaries, fucking awesome film!!!

  27. Arean Narrayan Author

    I found the Movie Boring, Litreally slept through it. This was the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. Extremly Overrated. Absolute CRAP

  28. remo what Author

    Summary, the movie sucks, don't worry about it.

    But this movie makes me wonder, does this mean in QT's universe that Roman Polanski didn't eventually become a pedo?

  29. TheBenjyMan Author

    I'm sorry but I don't see how this is crossing the line in any way. Other than the last 10-15 minutes, this is the tamest Tarantino film to date, and still a damn good one. And anyone still saying Tarantino doesn't do strong female characters clearly didn't watch Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds, Jackie Brown etc.. I thought the film was brilliant and a positive alternate history if anything, and I still don't understand the alleged 'controversy' around it 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

  30. dontcheckmychannel Author

    Before I watch this video: No, it doesn't. There is no line to cross.

    Halfway through the video: How can brutality be misogynistic? Brad Pitt didn't declare "Aww, you can hurt me, pudding.". He was too busy kicking ass.

  31. Rooftop Author

    I see a lot of people dislike this film but I also see a lot of people dislike Jackie Brown and I'm pretty sure those are the same people. People really just wanna see blood sacks explode huh?

  32. Sudev Sen Author

    Lee being the recognisable "heavy" who exists to get his ass whooped and make Cliff look good is an example of how Scharz described why Dtpn gets cast as a "heavy" to make the fresh faced actors look good.
    It was meant to show that nobody cards about the "heavy" and QT doesn't care about Lee either.

  33. Joel Feila Author

    Well I called half of the plot twist when Tate's names was said in the preview
    My 2 cents on this. It is not wrong to feel upset by historical or cultural appropriation. That does not make it wrong for them to do it.

  34. David Comito Author

    What is film if not an illusion of reality that our brains can digest and think about. I would argue that we almost demand film to be a portal into "what if?".

  35. SENATORPAIN1 Author

    can anyone give me an example of when tarantino used violence against women in such a way that overshadowed the violence against men in his films?

  36. DeepEye1994 Author

    The only thing that could surpass this now is if Tarantino makes a movie set in Britain during the '90s and his characters save James Bulger and kill Venables and Thompson.

  37. James Royce-Dawson Author

    I wouldn't mind the ultra violence if it actually established why we should hate those characters. You can't just rely on everyone knowing the Manson family. They literally do nothing and say nothing about their ideology until the massacre

  38. Operator151 Author

    you know talking fast works for the british guy because of his quips and humor he throws in around every corner. There doesnt seem to be a reason for you to talk fast as you are trying to make a serious point and instead of conveying your message and voice it sounds like someone holding in there pee or the kid who never knew how to read out loud in class. Whatever point you are trying to make is completely missed because of this.

  39. AmightyT Author

    Honestly, the Bruce Lee scene is a more respectful showing than the actual tale it"s based off of.

    During the filming for The Green Hornet Bruce Lee and stuntman Gene LeBell started sparring, Lee was similarly cocky as he was the film. Context for Gene LeBell: He's a Legend, the Godfather of Grappling, the Toughest Man Alive, kind of a big deal. At the time he was already a two-time award-winning Judo champion. The way that sparring match ended was with Lebell throwing Lee on his back and running around the set, with Lee threatening to kill Lebell if he didn't put him down. Lee later remarked that the event played an extremely important role in the development of Jeet Kune Do, as it showed Lee that his fighting style was at a severe disadvantage to grapplers.

    To hear the whole story it plays like a lighthearted comedy scene where a tough guy gets knocked down a peg, honestly more unflattering than the movie interpretation if you ask me.

  40. KnaveMurdok Author

    I don't necessarily take exception to the idea of Bruce Lee having a big mouth, or being defeated by someone. those are all matters of historical fact. The thing i personally take exception to is Cliff booth being the one who manages to defeat him. Nothing about Cliff suggests he's a better fighter than Lee, or even a good fighter in general. He's a stunt man, an aged stunt man, a stunt man who has trouble finding work a lot of the time, it would suggest. They mention he was a soldier at one point, and yeah i know they do teach hand to hand combat in the Army, but they mostly use firearms. If they'd had some kinda backstory about Cliff like he was interested in martial arts at an early age, or he grew up in a rough neighborhood where he had to fight all the time, that'd be one thing, but the only glimpse we get into his character is that he's a washed up stuntman for a washed up TV Star who's been having a harder and harder time finding work ever since the murder/accidental death of his wife.
    him beating up the Manson kids I can believe because they were young, inexperienced zealots who never thought their victims had it in them to fight back. But beating Lee, at ANY point in his life, even in a friendly bout, is where this fairy tale story kinda loses it's credibility for me.

  41. Jim Heeren Author

    I’m pretty sure that if you have Tate s sisters blessing and can even use her real jewelry there is no controversy only people looking for one. This is the same director that killed Hitler in a movie theater together with a 1000 other Nazis

  42. Matt Evans Author

    It's a Tarantino movie. People being offended by him doing what he does best, shows exactly why our society is doomed. If he was good before, he is good now, and saying otherwise shows you have no integrity.

  43. AlucardaLaCarte Author

    Huh! I didn't know how hard the spin had to work to turn Manson (because of how he looked and talked rather than what he was actually saying) into a left-wing boogeyman, but it really does show you that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    I'm kinda glad I spoiled this ending for myself, it's made me want to watch the movie a great deal more.

  44. chewface Author

    "What claim does Quentin Tarantino, a white writer/director originally from Knoxville Tennessee, have in imagining historical revenge fantasies for crimes committed against black and Jewish people?"——-Questions like this infuriate me. Anyone who asks questions like that need to wake the fuck up. You are so woke you are in a coma. You can't "claim" history just because of your ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. What would be the difference between a white man directing a movie about MLK….vs. a Muslim woman directing a movie about September 11th??? If they make a good movie, isn't that all that matters? Once again….people are getting obsessed with identity politics. Kinda like how people DEMANDED a "woman" direct the Wonder Woman movie. As if a man's vision of the film would be insulting or something? Get real. What if a "man's" vision of the film was 1000 times better than what we got? Does that matter? Or does your SJW agenda matter more?

  45. John Slade Author

    Cassius Clay had already changed his name to Mohammad Ali long before 1969. To hear the two men referring to Ali as Clay was the inaccuracy that irked me.

  46. JDH Author

    Sharon teases Jay about Dancing to Paul Revere & the Raiders and asks if he's afraid she'll tell Jim Morrison. In real life Jay was Jim's hairstylist

  47. Dwayne White Author

    When the final Manson Family scene began I was a bit wary. I wasn’t sure how receptive I was going to be to an alternate telling of the story. However, once the chaos began; I burst into laughter…as did the entire audience. I suppose there was just something truly cathartic about watching those assholes get what they truly deserve.

    As for the Bruce Lee scene…what you have to remember is that this was 1969. Bruce was indeed a good fighter at the time, but it was several years before his peek conditioning.

  48. Jim Brown Author

    Being a late Gen-X person Sharon Tate isn't much more than a trivia question to me. I'm not much of a Tarantino fan, but generally this is much ado about nothing. Hollywood fiction has been playing fast and loose with history for…ever.

  49. MakiPcr Author

    Bruce Lee is my favorite part of the movie, I was so annoyed Janet stopped him from beating up Brad Pitt.
    And interestingly I didn't realize this movie was alternative history, I kind of assumed Leo was just gonna get murdered with Sharon Tate (also I didn't know about Roman Polanski crimes, so I guess I'm just stupid)

  50. Liam Trett Author

    2 things annoy me the big one being the swap of the Manson family to just Hippies which is more than a bit objectionable and a minor thing in the Ali comment because that seems wrong for Bruce Lee to say. Still I loved the movie over all.

  51. Christopher Saunders Author

    The way you phrased that Bruce VS Cliff scene made it sound like a reference to the 'Using a Heavy to demonstrate strength' idea put across to Dalton by Pacino's character – to demonstrate how strong Cliff was (context we'd need for later in the film) we had to see him beat on a character we already knew was strong… that's a clever element I hadn't even thought of!

  52. Malt454 Author

    It didn't so much cross a line as bail out on a premise – all the tension in the movie stems from showing Tate and the Manson family as characters, otherwise meaningless outside of audience knowledge of history and the Tate murders. The ending isn't so much alternative history as a grotesque cartoon and it leads to the same kind of lazy "revenge fantasy justifies all" writing as in Inglorious Basterds. Submitted by any other director, critical patience for this kind of nonsensical self indulgence would wear thin almost immediately.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *