GoldenJCJ

Exactly. Calling it a “20 hour cut” makes it sound like it was some kind of cohesive, edited rough cut that runs 20 hours in length. In reality, it sounds like 20 hours of footage that was probably shot for all of Leo’s movie/TV footage, some unedited longer takes, improv-ed takes, etc.

My initial reaction was that it would be cool to see even more “day-in-the-life” footage of the characters but I doubt that’s what the majority of the footage is.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was my favorite movie of 2019 so I’d be down for a 4 hour director’s cut of day-in-the-life of Rick Dalton, Cliff Booth, and Sharon Tate (seeing more of Sharon Tate and her friends or more of Rick in Italy would be cool to see) Of course, for most moviegoers, watching those characters running errands for another hour and a half might be too much.

Josh-da-man

Wasn't he also going to write a Kill Bill novel, too?

Why So Blu?

Don't remember that since has his Whole Bloody Affair edition. This OUATIH novel comes out in June.

Crocker Jarmen

Me too. To me, the "plot-less" nature of the movie enhances it's re-watch factor. I can put it on and immerse myself in the mood of the film, the same way you would a record album over and over.

By all accounts there are tons of extra scenes. I would love to see a longer version or a mini-series like Netflix apparently had for Hateful 8 (which didn't seem to have made it's way to Canadian Netflix so I haven't gotten a chance to see that yet).

OldBoy

fuck, I would buy that for entertainment value. That should be streaming. I bet interesting as fuck. See it at leisure...

Coral

I thought the version I watched was already the 20 hour cut. It sure felt like it.

johnnysd

Agree. I wouldn't want to see another minute of this. I sort of found it intensely boring and just more overindulgent Tarantino. Some people liked the rewriting of the Manson murders but I found it to be distasteful. I remember almost nothing about this movie except for some of the bits that happened on that ranch and the very end. And I have LOVED some of his movies.

Paul_SD

3/4 into it I was sure one watch would be plenty for me. I was finding it taxing in a way I hadn't found IB or Djamgp prior.

The last act recolored my perception of the whole, and now with even more distance I feel like I'd be up for an even longer cut.

I may come to regret that feeling, but that's where I am.

Paff

Maybe not 20 hours (ok, definitely not 20 hours), but I'd love to see more of the Once Upon a Time world, and more of its characters. No so much Cliff and Rick, they monopolized the screen time, but some of the Family members other than Pussycat (aw hell, I can look at Margaret Qualley all day. Pussycat too), certainly more Trudi Sykes.

One thing I've noticed after my two initial theatrical viewings is that it is a movie you don't have to watch beginning to end. It's frequently airing on the Starz channels (albeit in an incorrect aspect ratio) and I can easily spend 30-40 minutes in that world then move on to something else. Or watch it till the end. Doesn't matter. And that's why it's grown on me more, as it's less a plot driven film and just a re-creation of a time and place (see film title). Nothing will ever top Pulp Fiction in my book, and I've stopped "ranking" all the QT films other than PF, but I'm appreciating it even more as time goes on. Really great piece of work there.

GoldenJCJ

There’s a point in the movie, around the time Rick leaves the country to film Spaghetti westerns, where Kurt Russell pops in to do some narration. It feels a little out of place to me, like Tarantino had to do some creative editing and added in the narration to connect the dots of the plot or something. I still think it works but it feels a little jarring to have Russell begin narrating for just a few minutes 2 1/2 hours into the movie.

I can see Tarantino having more footage of that part of the movie before the Manson family finale.

Why So Blu?

I think that narration serves as a bridge to the final act. Hell, there was that brief narration in the first act at the restaurant where Dalton is talking to Marvin Schwarzs and says that Cliff drove him because his car was in the shop. If anything, that first narration is jarring, but works, because it's funny and paints Dalton as an alcoholic quite early.

Dr. Mantle

This was my least favorite tarantino movie, but I'm actually intrigued by a much longer cut. I realized with snyder's justice league that the macro can be seen in the micro. The same way a writer tells you the essence of a novel in every sentence, a skilled filmmaker is telling you the whole plot in every shot. But when you chop out 30-50% of the plot, you have a narrative arc that doesn't match the narrative tone.

Why So Blu?

The novel written by QT will also be 400 pages. For slow readers, there's your 20 hours right there.

Paff

That might be my one critique of Tarantino's movies, that he violates the "show, don't tell" rule of quality filmmaking. He doesn't just do it in Once Upon a Time. Kill Bill had The Bride narrate the O-ren Ishii story, Inglourious Basterds had Samuel L. Jackson explain nitrite film, and Tarantino himself explains the set up of the second half of Hateful Eight.

bluetoast

He narrates at the beginning as well, to indicate that Rick Dalton lost his license.

Crocker Jarmen

I'm astonished Tarantino didn't use his own voice for the narration. He's a big ham who likes to appear in his work, he'd already been the voice of the narrator in Hateful 8... it just seems natural that he would say, "I should do this!"

I don't know why he went with Kurt Russell, but it's one of the best decisions he's ever made as a filmmaker.

Paff

He still got in there; he's the director of the Red Apple commercial during the closing credits.

Michael Corvin

Actually just watched this the other night for the first time. What the fuck, self indulgent meandering piece of crap was that? Leo & Pitt were great together and those characters were solid. The film oozed style, other than the obsessive smoking (I get it, people smoked back then I don't need the constant hammer to the head). But the story QT chose to tell with these two characters was so damn boring. He could have also excised the entire Margot Robbie/Tate plot and it would have been better for it.

It only really got interesting in the last half hour and not because of the violence, but because I was waiting for 2 hours for something...anything to happen.

Tarantino is usually hit or miss with me, and this was a definite miss.

Why So Blu?

Pulp Fiction is my favorite QT film. OUATIH is my #2, dethroning Jackie Brown to #3.

mickey65

This one wasn't too bad. It took a second watch for me to appreciate it more. I wouldn't mind seeing an extended version of it.

Paff

It's been said countless times that movies are subjective, and if you don't like something then you don't like something. That's it.

But, Quentin was never trying to tell an interesting story here. It's all about re-creating a time and place that will never happen again. The "story" is of secondary importance. I don't know if you're a fan of Linklater's Dazed and Confused, but it's pretty much the same thing.

The thing about OATIH is that it's all about movies, and especially MAKING movies. Things to notice: In every driving or street scene, there's multiple theaters in the background, always. QT was definitely showing a world where industry #1 is movies. And almost all the conversation is about making movies. Notice the scene when Rick and Cliff are watching Rick's episode of FBI and listen to the dialogue. "Where did you film this? PCH?" "Ooh, I like that shot". The whole thing is what people who make movies think about.

Now admittedly, that might not be your thing, you want to see an interesting story. Can't argue that that is not the case in this movie, because I'll be the first to admit it isn't. But if there's something, anything that you're interested in, you'll notice the little details. Like if you're a hardcore football fan, it's the difference between "Yay! Touchdown!" and "Green Bay is really owning the line of scrimmage here, and if Chicago can't figure out these blocking schemes they're in for a long day". Or if you're listening to a musician, it's the difference between "Has a good beat and you can dance to it", and "Wow they're really using a lot of key modulation here and I like the chord changes, it's not what you'd normally expect".
In those examples, neither are wrong per se, it's just that one shows a deeper appreciation of what's being done to create the game, or the art. What you see in OATIH is Quentin Tarantino's attitude about filmmaking, like what he thinks when he watches a movie. "How did they do that?"

If that's not something you dig, then you'll probably never like the movie. But the more I see it, the more I see those little nuances.

GoldenJCJ

This is a very good explanation for this movie. It’s an obvious love letter to the movies and if Tarantino sticks to his “10 movies and then retire” plan, I was kind of surprised that he didn’t save this one until his final film as a send off to Hollywood.

The problem with your explanation (which I think is on-point) is that I sound like a movie snob when I’m trying to explain this movie. I have a friend who loves watching movie but doesn’t get into the filmmaking aspects and movie history as much as me. When I saw this and started singing its praises, I told her to watch it as it was my favorite movie of the year. She came back after seeing it and said she absolutely hated it. My only explanation was that you had to have a better understanding of Hollywood history to thoroughly enjoy the movie. Hell, *I* thought it sounded pretentious coming out of my mouth but I didn’t know how else to describe it.

To me, it helps to know (and be a fan) of Hollywood history as well as the Manson family history. My wife enjoyed it more than my friend but I still had to explain the Spaghetti western stuff, old tv shows, and the true story of the Manson family to her. She didn’t know the real story of Sharon Tate.

Im not saying people on THIS forum don’t “get” the movie because I understand that most of us here are movie fans and movie history fans but if you go in expecting an actual plot driven story to play out, you might be disappointed. For me personally, I enjoyed the experience of being in that time. I spend more time looking around the background of a scene than I do watching what’s happening in the foreground. There’s old movie posters or 1960s “product placement” in almost every shot. I’d even venture so far as to say it’s probably the most historically accurate movie I’ve ever seen as far as the set design.

Obi-Wanma

I generally like my movies to be plot driven. I don't really like Dazed and Confused, but I am not old enough to remember anything from the seventies except Star Wars and the music. The music in D&C is great, but I never did drugs and I never knew anyone like the characters. I have friends the same ages as me (including my wife, who is 3 years younger) who do like the movie, so different strokes and all that.

OATIH is a mixed bag for me. There's stuff I really liked and other stuff I could really do without, like all the driving scenes. I also didn't really know the Manson/Tate story the first time that I saw it, so everything at the ranch was kind of lost on me and went on too long. The research that I did after the fact really helped out, and I enjoy that part of the movie much more now.

Paff

The whole thing with "getting" Quentin Tarantino (and there's not much to get, really...he wears everything on his sleeve) is in the very beginning of True Romance, as spoken by Clarence Worley. "I see that hillbilly on screen, and I want to BE him".

Every one of QT's movies is him acting out his personal fantasies, whether it's as a bad-ass blaxploitation character, a one-person wrecking crew taking on an entire martial arts gang, going to Germany in WWII with your Jewish friends and destroying all the Nazis, taking out a slave-owner and his plantation, or making movies in late 60s Hollywood.

You can also see it in the behind-the-scenes of Pulp Fiction, as he's "directing" the Uma Thurman/John Travolta dance scene. Is he behind the camera making sure the shot is perfect? No. Is he coaching and coaxing the best performance out of his actors? No. He's just off-camera, dancing right alongside Mia and Vincent. Everything he does is just him putting on screen who he wishes he could be.

Why So Blu?

Yeah, It's really evident in True Romance. Clarence is QT. QT is really the one that likes to have pie after seeing a movie.