‘OUATIH’ opened with $40 million at the box office, is that surprising?

ouatih poster

The only Quentin Tarantino film I’ve never watched is Django Unchained. I was curious about it but at the end of the day, I just couldn’t force myself to watch it. I read a lot of stuff about how violent and cruel it was so I just skipped it. I did see The Hateful Eight in the theater and I came out of it largely disappointed. As a director, Tarantino undeniably has massive skills. But as a storyteller, I feel like he’s been struggling for a time. All of this to say, I still haven’t made up my mind about whether I’ll see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I’m curious about the “vintage Hollywood” aspect of it, especially since every review mentions that the film is Tarantino’s love letter to late ‘60s films and television. But the Manson Family aspect of it just seems… ugh. And I read some spoilers about the ending and I’m just… not feeling it. Still, OUATIH ended up performing well at the box office, perhaps even better than expected:

Sony’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is riding toward a $40 million opening at the domestic box office after grossing $16.9 million on Friday — writer-director Quentin Tarantino’s biggest opening day, not adjusted for inflation. And for the full weekend, the critically acclaimed, R-rated movie looks to narrowly edge out Inglourious Basterds to mark Tarantino’s best opening, thanks to his ardent fan base and the allure of seeing Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt together on the big screen for the first time. One surprise: Once Upon a Time received a B CinemaScore from moviegoers. His two most successful films, Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchanged, received an A-.

Tarantino’s ninth film — and the first made without the aid of Harvey Weinstein — is billed as the only original tentpole of the summer for adults, which is otherwise dominated by franchise installments and other branded IP. Speaking of the power of brands, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood will still come in No. 2 behind Disney family powerhouse The Lion King, which is expected to earn $77 million-$80 million in its sophomore outing. The Jon Favreau-directed pic topped Friday’s chart with $22.3 million.

Heading into the weekend, Sony remained conservative in predicting a $30 million opening for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. But rivals and other box office analysts projected a start in the $40 million to $50 million range. Since adults don’t rush out on the first weekend, the bigger question is the movie’s staying power. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood cost at least $90 million to produce after tax rebates and incentives, likely making it Tarantino’s most expensive film. It’s getting the widest release of the maverick filmmaker’s career, or more than 3,500 theaters.

[From THR]

Yes, most of Tarantino’s films are about the longer theatrical runs and word-of-mouth and “I’ll see it on a lazy summer Sunday.” A $40 million opening sounds better than I expected, and anyone who thought it would open with more than $50 million… well, it’s a hard-R-rating and that really matters. Interestingly enough, THR ran their box office report alongside a thoughtful column about Tarantino and how he uses violence against women as a punchline – go here to read. The columnist, Joelle Monique, makes some good points. I just feel like… maybe Tarantino’s primary audience (the generation that saw Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction in our teens and 20s) has outgrown him and outgrown his cinematic vision of just violence, pulp, historical revisionism, etc?

Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio back in their car on the set of 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood'

Queen Elizabeth II

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red, ‘OUATIH’.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

103 Responses to “‘OUATIH’ opened with $40 million at the box office, is that surprising?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. OG Cleo says:

    Saw it and hated it, but most of the other audience members seemed to have a good time.

    • Mgsota says:

      I saw it and liked it a lot, I like Tarantino movies for the most part. My husband on the other hand was NOT a fan.
      I loved the whole ‘60’s vibe in LA, with actors from that era and commercials and cars and just all of it, it was cool. Leo was great.

      • OG Cleo says:

        Loved the way it looked and Brad and Leo’s performances were career-highs, but a lot of the messaging, pacing, narrative choices, and the framing of the Bruce Lee cameo (even though Mike Moh was great in the role) rubbed me the wrong way. The feet were also overwhelming after a while. I’m glad you enjoyed it, though! My fiancé likes it a lot as well.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      My bf saw it w/out me, w/friends, and he loved it. I won’t see it in the theaters (not going to give that misogynist sadist my $$$). When it shows up on cable/Netflix I may check it out.

      (Also, with my overactive bladder there is NO WAY I can sit through an almost 3 hr. film w/out pausing it! lolol)

      • Anne Call says:

        Haha. I’m right there with you. I need to pause my movies these days for bathroom breaks and wine refills. Also I hear it’s only violent at the end, so will skip that part. Grew up in Hollywood/Los Feliz in the time period mentioned. Really want to see that aspect of the movie. LaBiancos lived a half mile away. Went to school with their kids. Ugh.

    • Laura says:

      My husband and I saw it this weekend. We were both huge QT fans, but to be honest, neither one of us have liked much of his work after Kill Bill.

      We both said we didn’t hate it, but we also didn’t necessarily like it that much. It felt like it was two hours of semi-nothing building up to what happens in the last 15 minutes or so. Our audience was really quiet in the theater until that last 15 minutes which brought in a lot of laughs and that made me a bit concerned…

      The settings were just gorgeous as were the clothes, hair/make-up/cars; it truly did feel like it was right out of LA in the late 1960s but the story just seemed a bit rambly. Pitt & Leo were fine, but I wasn’t rooting for either one of them and that took me out of the story a bit. My sister feels like he could use an editor to help reign in his vision, with which I have to agree.

  2. Eliza says:

    40mil for a 90mil+ film on opening weekend is about a break even (unless it does super well intentionally). The 90mil doesn’t include any costs for ads/marketing, which is at least another 10-20mil if not more. And the 40 mil is not a net gross, as movie houses still have to take their cut, and moving forward the houses will take larger cuts (it’s why “opening weekend” matters to movie makers, it’s when they make the most money).

    • ToiFilles says:

      I remember a Kevin Smith’s interview with KCRW’s The Business. A movie has to gross 2x its production budget at the box office to break even. Someone later appended the Hollywood metric that, to be considered a financial success, box office gross* needs to be TRIPLE the production budget (*over full theatrical release) . I’ll be watching BoxOfficeMojo to see if it pulls in $180mil

      It’s worse for micro-budget indy movies, because most major distribution companies won’t take on those projects without charging *a minimum* of $20mil for advertising. So, day one, that $3mill movie is in red ink & the investors who financed the production budget will be the last to get paid.

  3. Sierra says:

    Two of the biggest stars in the world and it only opened to 40 millions?

    Whoever decided to open in between Lion King & Hobbs vs Shaw should lose their job.

    This movie is going to struggle next few weeks and with the budget of 90 million and PR campaign, it will take a lot for it to be a massive hit.

    • AB says:

      True. The $40 million barely covers Brad + Leo’s quotes. For most movies, this would be a flop.

    • Div says:

      $40 million for a 2 and 1/2 R rated film is actually quite good nowadays…you rarely have the huge openings anymore unless it is a comic book property, especially with all the streaming services eating away at the theaters. That said, I agree it was stupid to open it the week before Hobbs and Shaw because that will eat into next’s weeks gross.

    • Ali says:

      I can’t wait to see Hobbs and Shaw! I’m taking my 12 year old.

      I’m not seeing this movie in the theater or at home. No interest.

  4. Mia4s says:

    Hey that’s neat. Just a reminder to everyone that Tarantino cast Emile Hirsch in this movie, a “man” who tried to choke a random woman to death in a club. Anyway…Hollywood.

    • Zapp Brannigan says:

      A Paramount Pictures executive at that, but the studios don’t seem to care and I really don’t get it, choking an employee to the point of unconsciousness should cause concern to the studio heads, Hollywood is so messed up.

    • lucy2 says:

      Considering he himself has felt the need to choke 2 actresses for his films, and didn’t “trust” the other actors or stunt people to do it, I’m not surprised at his casting of Hirsch.
      There’s a pretty long list of reasons why I won’t give Tarantino any of my money.

      I can’t believe that movie cost $90 million.

    • Laura says:

      I was very disappointed to see he was in the movie. If it is any consolation, he’s only in it for a short period of time, but he is a main character in the Sharon Tate side of the story, which is also only in the film for a short period of time, which was weird. He still shouldn’t be getting any roles in Hollywood period.

    • Luciana401 says:

      What??? How did I not know this??

  5. AB says:

    Tarantino’s portrayal of women and violence is modern-day problematic. The Hollywood Reporter piece is right, and if anything, softer than necessary on Tarantino. In the movie, it’s supposed to be a running joke that BP’s character killed his wife, but got away with it. It’s an homage to a beautiful woman who doesn’t speak. We see you, QT.

    • Eliza says:

      The beautiful woman who doesn’t speak is the representation of innocence. You know the pre-feminism ideology of innocence: Beautiful woman only to be looked at who never speak is the golden age apparently.

  6. Snappyfish says:

    Jackie Brown is his best film

    • Mego says:

      Jackie Brown is one of my favourites. Pam Grier and Samuel Jackson blew me away and all the cast was terrific. Next for me would be Kill Bill. I did not like Pulp Fiction and didn’t see Reservoir Dogs or anything recent because the violence is too much for me.

  7. crogirl says:

    I do think those are good numbers for R rated movie, I don’t plan to see it but this review is a bit disturbing especially knowing what he did to Uma
    https://bloody-disgusting.com/reviews/3575215/quentin-tarantinos-upon-time-hollywood-brings-self-indulgence-new-lows/

    • Wisca says:

      Thanks for sharing this insightful critique. Money quote:

      “Sharon Tate, as played by Margot Robbie, is built up throughout the entire movie and never pays off. She’s become a meaningless footnote in a movie that wouldn’t exist without her, released on the 50th anniversary of her murder, and the murder of her unborn child.”

      When combined with the Pitt character backstory & the Emile Hirsch hiring, it seems that QT is reveling in some of the same male fantasies as the C. Affleck women-are-extinct film & the Damon & Ben Affleck’s should-we-burn-a-rape-survivor? film in development.

    • mackyj says:

      Thank you for this share–really great review!

  8. Boxy Lady says:

    I went to see The Farewell instead. Beautiful film and Awkwafina did a great job in a serious role.

  9. Lena says:

    I decided to see it last minute on a Saturday afternoon because it was too hot outside to do anything else. I live in a highly populated area and the 6 theaters nearest me were sold out at the mid afternoon matinees so we went to the7th one a bit farther out. I enjoyed it probably because it struck a lot of nostalgia buttons for me having lived in L.A. in the 60s. And Tarantino is nothing if not an original storyteller. I’ll admit Superhero franchises leave me cold and I just wish I could see adult skewing films on the big screen again instead of being regulated to sitting at home watching Netflix. Leo and Brad were great.

  10. Becks1 says:

    I say on here all the time that I never go to the movies, but we were kid-free on Friday night so we went to see it.

    First – its long. I think the running time is 2 hours and 40 minutes? So just the length alone is not going to work for everyone.

    Second – it is a Tarantino movie. There is a lot less violence than you would expect, and a lot less sex, but it is still undeniably Tarantino in its style. SO, if you like Tarantino, I think you are going to really like this one. If you aren’t a Tarantino fan for whatever reason, you prob wont like this one.

    Finally – I ended up really liking it. Like, I was almost embarrassed with how much I like it. I said to my husband, “I’ve spent almost a year mocking the movie on the celebrity blog I follow but I cant help it, I liked it!!”

    It’s long, and QT absolutely could have cut out some scenes and made it 20 minutes shorter without losing anything in the movie. But, at the end, I was like, huh. Okay. I get what he was doing. And I ended up really liking it.

    The 85 year old couple next to me did not like it though. They left 20 minutes in. LOL.

    • Laura says:

      Becks, can you elaborate on the parts that you liked? I saw it on Sunday and I just feel like of “huh, okay, that was a thing” & I can’t really form an opinion on it. There were some parts where I felt the creepiness that QT wanted the audience to feel, but I don’t really have any other feelings about other parts of the movie. Being a QT fan since seeing Pulp Fiction at 11 (yeah, my upbringing wasn’t that structured) I really wanted to like Once Upon… but I just feel like it was a flat, boring movie with a supposed-to-shock-you ending.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Laura, the ending was what I liked. I don’t want to elaborate too much because I’m afraid of being accused of spoilers, lol. but I felt like I knew what was going to happen, and I didn’t, and I think it was supposed to be shocking, but I think it also went to the title. It was just a typical Hollywood story. Big tv star has-been trying to keep his career going. To me it was the tension through the whole thing, the suspense of waiting for the big moment, that I really appreciated in retrospect.

        I also thought Brad Pitt and Leo were good in it.

        the one thing I wish had been made clearer was the situation with Brad and his wife. Like its said he killed her and got away with it, but Leo kind of implies that’s not true, but was that just Leo protecting his buddy, or what. Maybe it wasn’t supposed to be made clearer. I didn’t think either one was supposed to be a good person so I guess being unclear was okay.

        Anyway, it was def too long, QT could have cut out some of those shots of feet, ha, but I ended up really liking it. I said on another post that I am about 50/50 on QT (loved Kill bill and Django, can never finish Pulp Fiction, lol) and this one I liked. My husband and I were both like “omg we want to watch it again.”

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh and also, I found Brad Pitt amusing. I don’t think he’s the best actor out there, but I think he’s a better comedic actor in some ways than a dramatic actor, at least in the kind of dry humor like here and Burn After Reading etc.

        Example – the scene where Leo tells him they don’t need him, and you have the flashback to the Bruce Lee fight, and then in “present day” 1969 Hwood hes like, “yeah, that makes sense.” I laughed lol.

      • not so gullible says:

        Growing up in California in the late 1960′s I think QT captured it perfectly. I usually enjoy his films but had my eyes covered for the last 10 minutes (just me.) I thought it was really clever and I definitely think Leo should be nominated for another oscar. I loved the whole movie, within a movie, or screen tests. Just brilliant.

      • Laura says:

        Thanks Becks, that does help me process the movie a little bit better. I was also a little creeped out by how flippant the whole “he killed his wife but got away with it” seemed and was a little confused with the Bruce Lee scene. I couldn’t tell if it was a flashback or not until that chuckle from Pitt on the roof.

        I know, if we could talk about the ending that would make it easier, but I don’t want to spoil it for anyone who still wants to see it.

    • DS9 says:

      I’ll never understand why 80 year olds keep trying Tarantino. I’ve seen everything since IB in the theater and there have been walkouts each time.

      Tarantino is one of a handful of directors whose movies are exactly what you expect and yet it’s somehow new to boomers.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right??? That’s what H and I said when they left we were like…..maybe they didn’t realize its tarantino? LOL

    • stinky says:

      … tell me when to take a potty break, so i’ll know ahead of time!

  11. Valiantly Varnished says:

    From what Ive read and know about the film it’s not a very good film so 40 mil is decent – but box office will likely plummet this upcoming week. It’s one of Tarantino’s worst-reviewed films.

    • minx says:

      It’s 85 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes, that’s quite good.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        The ones I’ve seen have been quite lukewarm. Specifically in regards to the POV of the film and the ending.

  12. Emilia says:

    “maybe Tarantino’s primary audience (the generation that saw Reservoir Dogs & Pulp Fiction in our teens and 20s) has outgrown him”

    But this movie is Tarantino’s biggest opening weekend ever so the numbers don’t really reflect that. I can’t stand the guy but it’s clear most movie goers have no issues with the problematic crap he’s said/done.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      That may be the case but $40 is literally Leo and Brad’s salaries. So it may be his biggest opening but considering that most films box office drops after opening weekend and OUATM cost 90mil to make it will be surprising if the studio makes a profit. More likely they will just break even.

      • lucy2 says:

        It won’t matter though, if it loses money. They kept handing him buckets of cash to make more films.
        But heaven forbid a female director not smash box office records.

      • Emilia says:

        But I wasn’t commenting on whether the film would turn a profit, just challenging the notion that audiences are “over” Tarantino which isn’t supported by this weekends box office.

    • Godwina says:

      We can have major issues with his crap and still love his work. Yes, that’s not a stance a lot of people can take, and that’s fine. But to suggest all those who watch his stuff are also apologists for the man is quite an oversimplification. I love a lot of his work. I have zero interest in ever being in the same room as him. He is skanky af.

      The end of Tartt’s novel The Goldfinch contains an amazing screed on how humans can’t always help loving what they love regarding art and beauty. We can’t help what grabs us and whispers pssst in our ear and leaves an impression, and it’s individual. Her words, or near enough for a paraphrase. I can’t recomnend that book enough. I wish I could logically draw a line across things made by awful people, but it’s not possible.

  13. Starkiller says:

    Another trash film from a trash “filmmaker”. No one outside the US “film industry” actually takes this hack seriously.

    • Linda says:

      @starkiller
      That’s not true, I do not live in the US and he is taken very seriously here.

    • Slowsnow says:

      That is not correct: in the three countries I am from live and work, Portugal, France and the UK, he is revered.
      He is a filmaker’s filmaker, making inside jokes and references so films buffs love him. Also, he always makes a mix of violence, sex and beautiful women and big issues with jokes, which always works.
      He is talented albeit twisted and not very up-to-date to my tastes – he seems stuck in an era before cell phones (that he abhorrs), when women were happy to be objectified and manly men were the real cinema heroes.

    • Lucy says:

      That is so false. Tarantino is taken very seriously and revered by many.

  14. Jess says:

    I saw it and there were some beautiful shots of LA. Otherwise, I found the movie at times flat, boring and just plain silly. I will say though, that during the half hour of previews before it, I was captivated by a new trailer (which never happens to me!). The movie is called Queen & Slim and it looks SO GOOD. A modern day Bonnie and Clyde kinda thing with a very promising romance at the center. So Im glad I saw that preview at least 😁

    • Lena says:

      I thought that movie looked horrible! To each his (or her) own I guess.

    • Wisca says:

      I’m also intrigued by a black B & C contextualized from within / sparked by continuing police brutality.

  15. Lucy says:

    Please stop with that silly photo of Brad. I loved the movie and think it’s one of QT’s best. Brad and Leo were great in it. The theater was packed and no one walked out. Parts of it are very funny and shows us Sharon Tate as a real person and I see why her sister approved. On my top 10 list for sure.

  16. Raina says:

    That this pic of him keeps purposely the one getting used is bloody hilarious. There’s this one pic in particular my friend has of me and only shows it to people when I piss her off. So, yeah, it pretty much gets shown a lot. I think the Lil bytch keeps it in her wallet.

  17. sassafras says:

    Hmm… directed and produced by Quentin Tarantino – who threw Uma Thurman to the wolves/ under a bus whilst protected by Harvey Weinstein? Starring Brad Pitt who did something so bad that his two eldest sons won’t have anything to do with him? And also starring Leo DiCaprio who serially dates young models and religiously breaks up with them once they turn twenty five-ish? And this is a story about the brutal murder of a young woman?

    I think I’ll pass. At this point, I don’t trust these “gents” to tell me a story that I will enjoy.

    And I think the point above about the audience outgrowing QT is exactly right. When Pulp Fiction came out, I watched it in the theater, two nights in a row. It was fresh, modern, exciting. And now I’m over him. Nothing about this feels fresh, modern, exciting, IMO, especially with my concerns listed above.

    • Naddie says:

      I bow down to you. Everything about these three irks the hell out of me. It shocks me how women I know, intelligent and enlightened women worship Tarantino. I’ll never bother to see any movie of him that seems to have creepy violent men and brutalized women again.

  18. Pulplove says:

    I’ll not be paying to see another film by rape-apologist and actress-tormentor Tarantino. Even though he is a filmmaker who knows how to tell a story in an innovative, and sometimes even compelling way, after learning what the world has learned about him, I can’t get myself to watch any of his films again let alone pay to see them.

    It isn’t all that easy when you like someone’s creations to withstand the urge to watch or read or listen to them. But no one should get a pass for obnoxious behaviour no matter how good or unique that someone’s art may be. So, I’m done with Tarantino.

    • stinky says:

      Ever heard of Alfred Hitchcock? . .. .. . .. you’ll love him!

      • Lucy says:

        Hitchcock was a genius. His films are classics. Seen all of them.

      • Pulplove says:

        @stinky – No need to get condescending.
        It’s always a difficult discussion when and how or whether to separate the art from the artist (dead/alive).

        You’re comparing two different artists from very different time areas who may have done similar but not the very exact same wrongs. In the end, everybody has their own moral compass where he/she draws the line and decides to refrain from enjoying and from PAYING to see an artist’s work or just not do that at all.

        Knowing about the shady character and actions of a person alter my perception of this person’s work, especially when I am aware of someone else’s suffering and the level of suffering to achieve this result.

        You don’t agree with me, fair enough. But don’t resort to belittling me by suggesting I don’t know Hitchcock.

    • Lucy says:

      I think it’s very important to separate the artist from their art. Polanski made some great films just as Spacey did and Spacey was a theater genius both in NY and London.

  19. Patty says:

    It was Tarantino’s biggest opening ever. It’s an R rated movie with an almost three hour run time and it made $40 million dollars opening weekend. Those are fantastic numbers considering that it’s: not a sequel, not a remake, not based on a book, not based on a graphic novel or comic, etc. And a budget of $90 million dollars is not considered that high in today’s market. The movie will be considered a hit and it will definitely make a profit.

    • Original T.C. says:

      It might just be an expectations game but I expected higher from “the last movie star” + blonde male heartthrob women forgive for his messy divorces + fanboy director Tarantino. Without those factors, yes $40 Million opening is a BFD.

      The B cinema score is problematic long term and I’m not sure how well films about nostalgic Hollywood travel internationally. Not planing on seeing a film where the female lead is not a speaking human-being but I have no ill will towards their box office.

    • Valiantly Varnished says:

      90mil isn’t a lot. But when you gave two stars who make about 20mil plus PR, etc. it doesn’t leave a lot for profit. The overseas market will decide if it’s a hit.

    • Dali says:

      Adults do not rush to the cinema to see a movie they are interested in when its opening. So we will have to wait a few more weeks to see if its really a hit or not. But Im pretty sure it will be a hit especially overseas. People over here (Europe) can’t wait for it to see it. At least that’s what im reading over here.

      Am i wrong or does maya hawke ( uma and ethans daughter) has a small role in it ?

      • Becks1 says:

        @dali – nope, you’re not wrong. She’s in it. Just for a few minutes but it was definitely her.

      • crogirl says:

        Yes and she apparently claims she got her role just like everyone else, no special treatments.
        At first I thought it was funny how delusional she is but it turns out almost all small roles were given to celebrity offsprings so she probably did have the same treatment.

  20. kerwood says:

    The film stars two if the biggest stars in Hollywood and is directed by one if the most famous (not the best) directors working today. It SHOULD make money. But will people remember it in six months?

    • Lucy says:

      Yes. QT’s Pulp Fiction and Resevoir Dogs and Inglorious Badtards are cult classics. And OUATIH is one of QT’s best. Like him or not, he is a very talented and has a trademark vision. You know a Tarantino movie when you see it.

  21. Mm says:

    My mom and I walked out. So tedious with no plot. If I had to see one more shot of Margot’s feet or ass I was going to scream. Some online bros are saying that if you don’t like it it’s because you don’t know about Manson. Well I do know about Manson and I still thought it was bad. Like if someone made a Q T parody.

    I also want to add that I was a pretty big fan but after basterds I am not impressed

  22. sommolierlady says:

    I hate his films.

  23. DS9 says:

    It’s Tarantino. He’s considered a cult favorite for a reason so good or bad, big opening or small, problematic or not, the movie will have a place in pop culture.

    Also, if you look back at reviews for other QT projects, initial reaction doesn’t match long term outlook.

    I think of him along the lines of Terrance Malick and Michael Mann. Most won’t like it initially, many still won’t like it later, but there will be people devoted to it a full decade down the road, waxing poetic on the acting, the shots, what he was trying to accomplish forever. And because of that, he’ll keep making movies, if he doesn’t stick to that 10 and done business he blathers about.

    • kerwood says:

      Tarantino WISHES he was Malick or Mann. He’s got more flash but he doesn’t have the chops.

      • Lucy says:

        I doubt that since QT’s movies make money. I can’t remember the last Malick or Mann movie.

      • DS9 says:

        Tree of Life is the last Malick I remember and I’m still bitter I spent $2 bucks at the redbox for it.

        Public Enemies is the last Mann I remember and the only recent one I haven’t been able to see the value in on rewatch. I watch Miami Vice all of the time though

  24. CB says:

    I don’t see how you can ask if Tarantino’s base is tiring of his films? An -R rated original film opening at $40 million speaks that he still has his audience. It’s his biggest opener.

    I quite liked it. It could have have 15-20 minutes shaved off, but it was still a very good movie. I really enjoyed seeing his vison of Hollywood at the end of the 60′s. His attention to detail was very good. And Brad and Leo were fantastic. I do think both should get awards consideration.

  25. Mash says:

    Saw it and didnt appreciate the revisionist history. Sharon tate and the gang died…A HORRENDOUS DEATH…. why not let it be portrayed…doesnt have to be torture porn but lets not rewrite history….

    • Lucy says:

      Everyone knows what happened to Sharon and her friends. That’s part of the film’s genius. Tarantino created this sense of intense dread and then changed the outcome.

    • DS9 says:

      Because it’s been portrayed ad nauseam.

    • Becks1 says:

      The revising of history was what made the film so great. Like Lucy said, you have this sense of dread and anticipation and suspense that doesn’t end the way you think it.

      • Mash says:

        everyone….NO…i said what i said

        as a screenwriter and as a movie watcher i would have appreciated a more accurate history

        also we gotta really STOP forcing our opinions on other as facts…please and thanks

      • Becks1 says:

        Responding to your opinion is not FORCING my opinion on you.

        Geez louise. I feel like everyone needs a breather around here.

      • DS9 says:

        You asked why not, we answered.

        If you wanted a difference response, you probably should have phrased your comment differently or added an IMO disclaimer

        This man rewrote the death of Hitler and you feel ways about the Manson murders….

      • Lucy says:

        Exactly. That sense of dread was so strong. And despite not having a lot of lines, Margot’s portrayal showed Sharon as a lovely person and not just a victim. She was excellent.

    • The Recluse says:

      I saw it Sunday because I just wanted to see something that wasn’t all explosions, etc. I needed out of the house.
      I really loved how he recreated a period and place. Got a special sentimental thrill out of seeing the old style Taco Bell joints – miss those.
      It was enjoyable, but the big shadow hanging over it is what really happened. I actually felt a little sad at the end because Tate, her friends and the LaBiancas did not escape their horrible fates in real life. I flinched a lot at the end. Yikes. I guess you could say that Tarantino was meting out justice in absentia to monsters who killed innocent people and in particular an innocent pregnant woman.

  26. Lona says:

    Movie of the Year

  27. Canwegonow? says:

    Did anyone notice the ridiculous spray tans on BP, Leo and -most of all – Pacino?!? I liked the movie but the gratuitous foot footage/walking feet/bare feet etc AND spray tans were just weird. Lucky Margot Robbie was spared the orange glow.

  28. Katebush says:

    Haven’t seen it yet but I’m in MZ and it doesn’t open here for another couple of weeks but I’ll go and see it at the movies I can’t wait!
    I don’t love all his movies, reservoir Dogs was such a classic but some of his other have been a bit patchy, but I’m really looking forward to seeing brad and Leonardo together in this one

  29. Sidewithkids says:

    I tell you one thing the HW media is hyping it up. It’s at 73% from audience on RT tho which isn’t good b/c the audience won’t go if not good word of mouth. Think that may be what happened w/ the dropoff from The Lion King. The staying power on it may not be good. Plus, Shaw and Hobbs comes out so that’s gonna be big but then there’s a lull at the theatres (don’t think Melissa McCarthy’s Kitchen movie will do that well) until the It sequel. So we shall see.

  30. truth hurts says:

    I think with all the money Sony put out for advertising and you have two huge male stars and a cult following director, the amount of theatres played it should have made more money. HW is hyping it, the media is hyping it, the entertainment shows were paid to hype it so there you have it in a nutshell. They have to recoup the money to make a profit and because we live in a PR, image driven society they can sell anything if it is repeated enough. I don’t like Tarantino because of his racist vernacular in most of his films. Sorry that just something I find revolting. He himself is an egotistical prick and so is Leo and Brad.
    Men would love a movie where women are demeaned so publicly and Pitt had the nerve in one of the last interviews to talk about #Metoo. LOL.
    Anyways this has come and gone. I think they will nominate this crap for awards because its been bought and paid for. This is not some pop culture film that will be remembered for decades. But it has to be hyped to replace the money they paid to film and advertise it.
    People can give their opinions on whether they like it or not. Its a free country but don’t act like there was some messed up scenes in the movie.

  31. Actual Denny Lsu says:

    Not surprised. It’s one of the biggest of the year.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I would not say it is one of the biggest openings of the year. On the ranks of openings in 2019, its about #16, and the year is only 1/2 over.

  32. crogirl says:

    I just read this comment on another site and it sums up Tarantino vision perfectly:
    “Ben McShane@TeeVeeBen
    Emile Hirsch brutalized a woman in public; he gets the clever guy sexing the Hollywood doll. Pitt’s wife took his kids because he punched one; he gets to kill his shrew wife. Leo, notorious predator of young women, connects with a small girl. Polanski’s darkest impulses, erased.”

  33. holly says:

    Ah, thanks for the Crazy Eyes Brad, it never fails to amuse

  34. RedWeatherTiger says:

    I’m not a QT fan generally, nor a Brad or Leo fan…and yet, I went to see it anyway. I too liked the last 15 minutes…the “what could have been” if things had gone differently that horrible night.

    What I found interesting was the neighborhood. I have never been to or seen the area where Sharon lived, so when I pictured the scenes in my mind while reading books like Helter Skelter, I never quite got it. The weird way noise traveled or failed to travel in the canyons….no idea. This film showed me the way it was or something like it so that all that stuff made more sense.