Monday, July 29, 2019

Not a review for "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"




This is not a review for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.  I didn't see the movie.  While my small town (population 452) has a movie theater we never get movies on opening day.  It might be a few weeks before I get to see it.  Frankly, I am rather exhausted by all the hype that has gone on for months.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was never intended to chronicle the so called Manson murders.  Instead  its intent was to capture a narrow time in the past, 1969, a nostalgia piece harking back to the Hollywood back lots of that time, so any comparison to the actual murders is moot.  The biggest draw for this movie is the fact that Quentin Tarantino conceived and directed it.

Despite all of the publicity which featured the casting info, ad nauseam, for Family members and victims if you go to this movie thinking it's a "Manson" movie, you are going to be sorely disappointed.  All that aside, just how well was it received and more important to Tarantino, what are the box office stats?

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has turned out to be Tarantino's all-time biggest opening of any of his films.  In it's first three days, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, it grossed $41.3M and came in second for the week behind Disney's The Lion King, $76.M in its second week.

Exit polls, I guess exit polls are not limited to politics, who knew, say that 47% of people went to see the movie because of the director and 37% went to see it for the cast.  Both percentages are much higher than the norm of 7% and 18%, respectively.  It's good to be Quentin Tarantino.

Reviews of the movie have averaged out to lukewarm.


Frankly, I find the entire experience baffling, and any attempt to laugh off the Manson murders as sitcom fodder embarrassing.  Rex Reed

Though Tarantino mixes fiction and historical fact cleverly and confidently, I'm not sure what he wanted to achieve with the mix this time, and I'm not sure if he knew either. Ben Sachs

For those well-versed in the writer-director's work, it's a credible and intriguing addition to his filmography. Yet at 2 hours and 41 minutes, it also feels too leisurely in connecting its threads. Brian Lowry

As one might expect from Mr. Tarantino's previous films, his new one is violent as well as tender, plus terrifically funny. Yet this virtuoso piece of storytelling also offers intricate instruction on the pervasiveness of violence in popular culture.  Joe Morganstern

Meandering but deliberate, gorgeous and garrulous, it is very much the writer-director doing what he does so well, but in very familiar fashion. Which brings up the possibility that in making a movie about movie making, his real subject here is himself. Matthew Lickona

In-depth, character-driven, ultra-violent, over-long, and near-perfect... all the movie sins Tarantino has been criticized for over the years coming to a head in the most wondrous and cheer-worthy payoff any film fan could want. Kevin A Ranson

Shallow, meandering and tedious with only sporadic jolts of guilty pleasure fun and wit. Star power and charisma are not enough to keep the film afloat. Did its editor fall asleep in the editing room? Avi Offer

So, what say you, our readers?  Did you like it?


77 comments:

Logan said...

I'm not the biggest Tarantino fan, but I generally enjoy his movies. This one was no exception. Margot Robbie is ethereal as Sharon Tate. Great performance. The scene where she goes to see "Don't Make Waves" after buying Roman a 1st edition of Tess of the D'urbervilles is really sweet and a highlight of the movie.
Definitely not about Manson, but I was surprised at the small, morbid details QT snuck in (the much-debated Mamas & Papas sheet music and inclusion of "Twelve Thirty" in the soundtrack, for example).
I thought that QT's cinematic masturbation over his fav spaghetti westerns & other 60s movies to be self-serving, heavy-handed and often cringey, but there were cool/funny moments in the films-within-films.
I found the climax of the movie to be pretty gauche and silly, but I guess that's the point of it?
The very final scene before the credits roll is certainly bittersweet, as many reviewers have noted, and I guess makes some loftier statements about nostalgia, what-could-have- been, and the collective mythos of American pop culture.
What I really loved about the movie was the immersion in such a specific place & time. The cars, the music, the TV they watch, the clothes & sets are all beautifully and meticulously crafted. It's cool to see someone with as much money as QT get to recreate 1969 Hollywood.
I also really enjoyed the buddy-buddy, slice-o-life narrative of the movie. Overall, I'd recommend it, especially to the people who read this blog that are fascinated by the time and place portrayed in the movie.

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

I just saw it tonight and won't hold back at all on any spoilers. If you are planning to go, don't read any further.
It's a strange film. The pacing is ridiculously uneven. I'm no film buff or anything like that, and I've never seen a Tartantino film before, so I had no reference point going in. It is essentially two plots running concurrently, one dominant, one submissive. The submissive portion is about the impending Tate murders, and those portions must be viewed as a spoof unto itself.
The movie is really about the friendship between two men (DiCaprio and Pitt) and their efforts to hang on in a changing Hollywood in 1969 as a fading western actor and his stunt-double/gofer/friend. That in itself represents a proper movie plot, although it is hardly a linear plot. Where the tie-in between the two stories occurs is that Rick (Dicaprio) lives on Cielo, next to Roman and Sharon, whom he has actually never met. Ostensibly, Rick lives in what would be the Kott house. As the travails of Rick and Cliff (Pitt) move along, we are working towards August 8, the day Rick and Cliff return from 6 months in Italy resulting in 4 movies made there as a sort of career-salvaging attempt. They arrive back in LA, Rick has brought his new Italian wife back with him and the two men proceed to go out and get drunk, arriving at Rick's house on Cielo late on Aug.8. And this, of course, leads to the predictable alt-ending to the events that night on Cielo. Needless to say, everyone wants a happy ending where the occupants of 10050 Cielo survive and live happily ever after.
Drunken Rick hears the 1959 Ford rumbling out front of his house and confronts Tex, Sadie, Katie and Linda in a very belligerent manner. They demur and back down the road, parking the car on Cielo proper where we know the killers actually parked. They start walking back up, but Linda forgets her knife in the car. Tex throws her the keys and she goes back to the car ..... and takes off in it. Having changed their target from the Melcher house now to Rick's house, the remaining three break in and are confronted by Cliff, his pitbull and Rick's wife. Hilariously, Tex and Cliff high-five when Tex reminds him what his name is (they had met earlier in the film at Spahn Ranch). The occupants proceed to kill Tex, Sadie and Katie in an over-the-top, eye-rolling manner, including Rick using a flame-thrower to incinerate Katie. After the cops have tended to the scene and all quiets down, a very much alive Jay Sebring strolls down to the gate asks Rick what all the fuss was about, recognizing him as the TV star he was/is. Jay invites Rick up for a drink and to meet his friends Sharon, Voytek and Abigail.
Yeah, a nice little alternative ending.
The sweetest part of the film by far was a scene where Sharon (Margot Robbie) spots a theater in Westlake Village showing The Wrecking Crew, so she goes in to watch, delighting in the audience response to her slapstick scene with Dean Martin and her fight scene with Nancy Kwan. Actual portions of TWC were used, reminding the audience just how dazzling the real Sharon looked in that film.
Overall, a very fun movie and period-piece, but very ragged in it's execution. Very much a warts-and-all sprawling film at 2 hours and 40 minutes. But for all the fun and nostalgia, there certainly is a dark feeling in both of the story lines. It's not an attempt at a historical telling of anything, including the Tate murders, only that it represents an alternate version of the things that *might* have been possible. As I mentioned, the sooner you treat it as a spoof, the sooner you will understand Tarantino's intentions. Great musical soundtrack of minor AM hits and fabulous cinematography. It really captures the 1969 vibe in a way I haven't seen before.
Zelda gives it 8/10.

Robert C said...

Great review, Logan. I haven't seen and likely won't. I enjoyed some of QT's past films but lately have been disappointed. Also, I 'lived' the 60's and pretty much know what everything looked like and how things worked back then. But I'm sure many younger might find this off-beat QT film to be fun with a lot of bling and also interesting with regards to the social-cultural things back then.

Monica said...

I thought the film was fantastic! In all ways. He created a cinematic fantasy that paid off. It is wish fulfillment kiddos. I'm going to see it again.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I LOVED it! I was surprised at how many senior citizens were in the theatre. And I don't think anyone left before the end. I don't love all Tarantino movies and usually I find his dialogue long-winded and indulgent-But the dialogue in this movie is not like his usual. Along with Jackie Brown, this movie has two lead characters I actually cared about and Tarantino obviously cared about. The parts with the Manson family were sometimes great-the girl who brings Cliff to the ranch was great. I wish they had different people playing a few of the parts, while some were really good choices. Despite being a fictionalized version of the Manson family the intensity level of the film brought Spahn and the characters to life in a way that the B movies haven't.

Ajerseydevil said...

As a big Tarintino fan I'll stick to my opinion this movie ( Sucked ) worse movie of his I've ever seen suprised nobody else mentioned the creepy close ups of Margo Robbies feet Tarintino has a well known foot fetish & includes such scenes in many of his movie's

George Stimson said...

It was a 90 million dollar exploitative fantasy, tedious and uninteresting even as a nostalgia piece.

Ajerseydevil said...

Oh since no one else mentioned it
The Manson character appears in one whole scene I might ad the recreation of Spahn ranch was fantastic

Iduhiduhiduh said...

It was the movie debra Tate wanted Quentin to make.

Matt said...

At the theatre...

Matthew Record said...

Loved the soundtrack. Enjoyed the movie.

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

Matthew Record said...
Loved the soundtrack. Enjoyed the movie.

QT should have included something from Lonnie Smith's Move Your Hand album, which was recorded on August 9, 1969.

prefeteria said...

I enjoyed it a lot. DiCaprio and Pitt are excellent, as usual the effective use of music enhances the experience, and Sharon Tate is given a voice and a personality to be remembered by. Overall you felt like you were in 1969. The Pussycat character was an interesting amalgamation of the Spahn Ranch residents. I howled at the ending!

shoegazer said...

On 29 July 2019, Mr. Humphrat said:

"... Along with Jackie Brown, ..."

There you go!

Possibly this was Tarantino's best film, very much against his normal type. It is to Tarantino's body of work what "The Straight Story" is to Lynch's.

shoegazer said...

I was just shy of 22 at the time, and in college in SCal. It will be interesting to see how he portrays the little things, like...

People used the word "righteous" a good deal...like the way "amazing" was used a few years ago. Not sure if he'll get that one.

He's sure to get that there were hitchhikers everywhere, omnipresent, to the point that you seldom noticed them, and in that regard they filled the niche now seemingly occupied by the homeless.

For a good way to contrast the attitudes and sensibilities of the times, can you image normally motivated young women hitchhiking in great numbers today? That it was considered a fairly normal option for transportation.

Basically, it was an unpaid Uber ride...

shoegazer said...

Last comment for now...

WRT to the "what might have been" motif, it's interesting to consider what Tate's career would likely have become, given that she seemed relatively non-forceful and accommodating.

Right now, I'm thinking that well-handled, she might have been an American version of Deneuve. Same types of roles, same niche, etc.

Gorodish said...

Zelda Formaldehyde typed:

QT should have included something from Lonnie Smith's Move Your Hand album, which was recorded on August 9, 1969.

Your comment made me pull out the "Move Your Hand" CD from my shelves and read the back:
Recorded August 9, 1969 at "Club Harlem", Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Wow, I did not know this......one of the many Blue Note "Rare Groove" CDs I own.
Too cool!

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

Gorodish said...
Your comment made me pull out the "Move Your Hand" CD from my shelves and read the back:
Recorded August 9, 1969 at "Club Harlem", Atlantic City, New Jersey.

Wow, I did not know this......one of the many Blue Note "Rare Groove" CDs I own.
Too cool!

Yeah, a few minutes of the title track would have worked. It certainly has that down-in-the-gutter groove that would have fit the seamy Hollywood scene of the times, wouldn't it?

Matt said...

prefeteria said...

...I howled at the ending!


QT is the Master of Dark Humor. I laughed like a little kid through the violence at Cielo, too. Very well done!


WF said...

Absolutely a stunning picture. Loved the whole thing, and plan on seeing it again. Also, not sure about the “lukewarm” reviews, everything I’ve read has been pretty much positive.

Again, this is not a Manson movie per se, but it attempts to correct (cinematically) the course of what those awful nights 50 years ago wrought. If you’re a fan of filmmaking, you will love this movie. And I’m not talking about the meta-references that characterize Tarantino films; I’m talking about the incredible acting and the gorgeous shooting and framing of Los Angeles. The scene where all the neon turns on at twilight is heart wrenching, with “Out Of Time” playing in the background. You KNOW what horrible things await...or do you? At that point, you (think) you know what’s about to happen, and you can feel your eyes water.

This is the first time I’ve posted here, so go easy! I’ve read just about every entry here, but up to now have just lurked. Kudos to all who have contributed.

DON’T read the random thoughts ahead if you don’t want spoilers -



Margaret Qualley steals the scene where she takes Brad Pitt’s character to Spahn.

The movie plays it straight for the first three quarters. My take on the last twenty minutes of the film is that the ending may not even take place within the confines of the film itself. Brad Pitt lights up his acid ciggie, “...and away we go!” Is it just coincidental that the rest of the movie is surreal? I don’t think so. I believe Tarantino has given you two endings - the ending we know about from history, and the ending that exists only in Cliff Booth’s acid trip. I know which one I prefer.

shoegazer said...

On 29 July 2019, WF said:

"I believe Tarantino has given you two endings - the ending we know about from history, and the ending that exists only in Cliff Booth’s acid trip. I know which one I prefer."

Life of Pi Goes Hollywood? ;^)

WF said...

Can’t figure out how to quote on an iPhone, so @shoegazer - Heh, true. I see you liked Jackie Brown, so you should enjoy this one, very character driven

Mr. Humphrat said...

WF I hadn't even thought of the fact that Cliff's lighting up the acid ciggie could open it up to two possible endings. Good thought.
Iduh...said "it was the movie Debra Tate wanted Tarantino to make." Yeah I was wondering how is it she's happy with his film and seeing how he gave plenty of time for Sharon to shine I can see why now. It was good to see.
And god it was good to be sucked into that moment in time again, with all the work he put into it for the setting, the music, the acting. The ending is a little funky for me but still fun. People have complained about it being too long and meandering. I was watching it and hoping it would meander for a long time.
Gorodish I will check out that album. I wonder if there's a recording of the Led Zeppelin concert in the L.A. area that night.

shoegazer said...

On 29 July 2019 Mr. Humphrat said:

"I wonder if there's a recording of the Led Zeppelin concert in the L.A. area that night."

Says here it was in San Bernardino.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led_Zeppelin_North_American_Tour_Summer_1969

Two things:

1) Trying to remember, but in the summer of '69, I don't think they had a great deal of exposure. This would soon change, that's for sure. I can recall going back to college that Sept and that fall they were a major breakthru.

2) San Bernardino is probably not where people in LA would go to see a concert. I know it well; my first wife was from there.

There was a concerted at the Anaheim Stadium the next night, 09 Aug. That's where LA people might go.

shoegazer said...

Thanks, WF! I will check it out!

Fiddy 8 said...

So, no mention from QT of How Steven Parent concluded his evening?

Matt said...

Fiddy !!!!!

shoegazer said...

On 29 July 2019 Fiddy 8 said:

"So, no mention from QT of How Steven Parent concluded his evening?"

I heard that in this version, he sold the clock radio. ;^)

Zelda Formaldehyde said...

Ah yes ... one of my criticisms .... the absence of Steve Parent. A huge missed opportunity. Just off the top of my head, imagine this ....
When Linda runs back to the car and speeds off, imagine her speeding off but clipping Steven's white Rambler as he turns onto Cielo proper from the access road after having left the Tate property uneventfully. He gets out of the car and bemoans the accident, and maybe she does, too. He inspects the damage to the Rambler and exclaims something like "my dad is gonna kill me when he sees this." Maybe he even tosses the infamous clock-radio in frustration. So many theatric possibilities there.
Or even just acknowledge his presence by having the white Rambler roll out in the background of the scene where Rick yells at the killers in the Ford outside his house.

CarolMR said...

FYI, Margaret Qualley is Andie MacDowell's daughter.

starviego said...

Music soundtrack available here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUFtUZykAKI

Mr. Humphrat said...

shoegazer said: "It is to Tarantino's body of work what "The Straight Story" is to Lynch's."
It seems that way to me too. They stripped away their usual style to do something closer to the heart.

Mr. Humphrat said...

Oh wow here is a link to Led Zeppelin 8/8/69 in San Bernardino!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a14EXLG1GiM

Mr. Humphrat said...

One commenter on the Led Zeppelin concert from 8/8 regarding the murders: "Page said Zeppelin and crew were staying in bungalows behind Chateau Marmont when the murders happened and scared the hell out of everybody. The band promptly moved out of the hills and into the Hyatt House in town. "

John Seger said...

https://www.polygon.com/2019/7/29/20734546/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending-explained-real-history-manson-murders-sharon-tate

JC said...

Nicely done!

Unknown said...

I just hope there's lots of close shots of big stinky feet! =D

all8 said...

Saw it last night. Honestly, not sure how I feel about it. I'm probably going to go see it again. The attention to detail is incredible! Definitely felt like you were in 1969. The ending is waaaay over the top. The final scene where Jay comes down to the gate and Sharon invites Rick up to the house for a drink was surreal. If only that had really happened.

Peter said...

Ass, gas, or grass. Nobody rides for free.

shoegazer said...

On 30 July 2019 Peter said:

"Ass, gas, or grass. Nobody rides for free."

Oh, wow, man. You're so uptight...

Due to a single major error in the film, as it regards accuracy of the portray of the era, Tarantino blew it by supposing that anyone ever smoked LSD. Or even that they could. I don't think it can withstand heat.

But this would only matter to a vanishingly few people who were adults or young adults between '65 and maybe '75 (at latest).

Matthew Record said...

It was interesting for me how QT stayed with the facts until the end. When Linda took off with the car and would not have been there to be the star witness and Steve Parent's car never came down the driveway. For a split second I thought what a terrible mistake. But then I thought, Oh Shit, it is time to put on our seat belts. This ride is going in a completely different direction and it did not disappoint. I had not considered until now that the ending could have just been the brad characters acid trip.

J-Dog said...

Shoegazer said : "Due to a single major error in the film, as it regards accuracy of the portray of the era, Tarantino blew it by supposing that anyone ever smoked LSD. Or even that they could. I don't think it can withstand heat."

Haven't seen the film yet, but smokimg LSD,is just "Dragnet" level stupidity, groaning WTF level of ignorance. Kinda shit you would joke and laugh about while high.....or so I've been told haha.
Maybe not such a big deal, but if you're going to spend ma$$ive amount$ to re-create a temporal reality, you might spend some time getting your means of drug use straight.
Could kill the movie's vibe, for me.
UNLESS of course, it's a joke perpetrated by QT, goofing on the drug hysteria of the time.
And yes I turned an adventurous 14 in 1969, Cambridge MA., good times. Except for older friends & their brothers heading off to the killing fields. and riots and whatnot.
To stay on topic, I promise to watch this movie soon, repeatimg, it's only a movie. it's only a movie, it's...

John Seger said...

Maybe it was actually PCP and the girls called it acid?! The movie is in an alternate reality. I didn't even think twice regarding it. The movie was surreal, beautifully shot, and an awesome over the top twist ending. I loved it.

John Seger said...

BTW, regarding his Italian wife named Francisca Capuchi: there was a Los Angeles DJ that went by that name on KIQQ FM

shoegazer said...

To a large degree I can see where it might not matter too much about the "smoked acid" plot element, but in a way it would be as if the Titanic, in the film, was referred to as having diesel engines. This might bother some people.

It strikes me as sorta lazy, and maybe even arrogantly so...doesn't check because he doesn't think he'll have to. His fans will give hm a free pass...

I was 18 in 1965, living in Marin county. Acid was a sort of commonplace thing for college age kids at that time.

In my opinion it did not last long because the hallucinogens were not necessarily pleasant; you tried them because you felt that you were *supposed* to try them. Grass was fun, cocaine was. Uppers were fun, but scary, kinda. Felt like God for a while...

Opioids are like nothing else...it requires an iron will to screw with them to any degree. You can chip for a while, but god help you if you get it wrong.

As always, my opinion, only.

Mr. Humphrat said...

I know nothing from personal experience about smoking LSD haha, but I would bet $100 Tarantino didn't just screw up his facts. It's either a sly-reference, a joke, or takes into account that the filter could've been dipped in acid too (I was reading people's thoughts elsewhere on that.) And a researcher said it becomes hard for the psychoactive properties to attach at heat, but perhaps not impossible.

Other trivia, I noticed Toni Basil choreographed the film-I think the Playboy Mansion scene.
And did anyone notice how many shots were fired with the pistol? Didn't it hold 9 shots?

Monica said...

I loved how QT added the little scene with Sharon at the Bookstore and almost completely left out Manson altogether. I liked how he gave the baddies their due. The movie's name is "Once Upon a Time" so I knew he would be rewriting his own fairy tale. I'm just happy about how sensitive he was. Best line: "I'm here to do the devil's business." Pitt: "Nah, what you said wasn't that stupid."

Monica said...

Also did anyone notice the background news story (in Pitt's trailer) about Christopher Jones? And MacArthur Park? QT is a serious Mansonblog reader, I just know it. I want to see it agai for all the little things I missed

DebS said...

I'm posting this for Doug who is having technical difficulties, something about a gerbil powered phone.....

Doug said-

Couldn't seem to post this, but I saw the movie with a female friend who is a true crime buff and, who's very knowledgeable with the Tate/Labianca/Hinman/Shea murders and, MF in general...

I felt that the cinematography was awesome. It was as if whatever the camera had in its lens became a character that, collectively, was as important (or, maybe even more so) than any of the movie's cast!

The recreations of Hollywood/Sunset Strip/Spahn/etc were incredible

Recreation of period television and movies was exceptional.

Radio and landshark auto as culture and, as integral parts of life was huge. Completely of it's time - I fucking miss that. The smell of new vinyl as you put the needle in the groove...the magic feeling of hearing a hot new tune from one of your favorites...or, some killer new one hit wonder...cruising. Joined by the tunes blasting from car after car after car...the clubs...Whiskey, Pandora's Box, Bido Lito's - where the party on the street equaled the fun inside!

Sharon in theatre, Cliff vs Bruce Lee, Dern as Spahn, method actor 8yr old vs Rick'sfading star all wonderful

The separate instances of friendship shown in their own unique ways (MF, Pitt /Leo, Cliff/dog, jet-set Playboy crowd, old -school Hollywood was interesting and, even striking at times. These friendships were real. Tight. To reference Linc (Mod Squad) They were SOLID.

The part that I wasn't down with was the amount of overkill violence inflicted on the female FACES. My date is no shrinking violet but, at one point during the annihilation of Tex, Sadie and Pat, said "WHAT THE FUCK?!" put loud. It wasn't because of the amount - or, even the manner/body location of the violence...why the fucking fuck did it have to be so much violence to their faces?

The factual violence to the actual victims was horrific, overkill, ugly for sure. We all have probably wished that horror on the perpetrators sometime or another...but, it seemed like there was some kind of underlying QT aggression/female hatred going on there

Overall I did like it. It was great on many levels. It was probably QTs LEAST violent film. But holy face obliteration Batman

Mr. Humphrat said...

So did they use the bottom of the real Cielo in the movie? Was any of the rest of Cielo used? The layout of the front of 10500 Cielo looked wrong to me, front door right by the driveway. And the beginning of the driveway to that house was all wrong wasn't it?

Matthew Record said...

It really did look like the bottom of Cielo drive but the front of the house was not the same and the neighbor house is not that close.

Mon Durphy said...

How could they use the real house, it was torn down 25 years ago? From the previews I've seen the street looks exactly like the real thing

Mon Durphy said...

The original house was so unique as far as where it sat on the property, where the property was, etc, the house practically wrapped around the bottom of the top hill in almost a semi circle and the property was at the top of one cliff and the bottom of another with at 150 driveway you could almost call a small parking lot, in my opinion a really awesome house and property

Mon Durphy said...

This is just my take but I think whoever did the research for the movie saw the autopsy pics and reports and saw AbigsilsA face laceration and what appeared to be a cut on Sharon's face which Noguchi said looked consistent with someone scratching her face with their fingernails and QT decided to use it in the scene

Mon Durphy said...

When you compare the violence to some of the stuff in Django it's pretty tame actually

Mon Durphy said...

I've never seen ANYONE come back from opiate addiction and I've known my share, the two or three most "successful" I've seen are practically lifetime Suboxone users

shoegazer said...

I respectfully disagree, Mon Durphy.

You can run the ppm of the opioid in your blood to near zero in a fairly short time. Then after that, depending on the individual, you can eventually be entirely free of the physical effects.

At that point, if you find that you like the real world better than the opioid version, you can stay off permanently, as if it had never happened. In fact, the withdrawal phase may stimulate a strong negative association, further adding to your resolve.

It all depends on *why* you started in the first place. If it was for escaper, there's a strong possibility of relapsing.

It's the difference between physical dependency and addiction; they are not congruent.

shoegazer said...

On 31 July 2019 Mon Durphy said:

The original house was so unique as far as where it sat on the property, where the property was, etc, the house practically wrapped around the bottom of the top hill in almost a semi circle and the property was at the top of one cliff and the bottom of another with at 150 driveway you could almost call a small parking lot, in my opinion a really awesome house and property.

I agree with your observation and since I do minor investments in residential real estate, I looked at 10050 in terms of how/when it was developed. It's something like 3.3 acres, but is unbuildable except from above--or rather, the greatest value would be obtained by building at the top of the lot, incorporating the view.

The part of Cielo the runs up to 10050 (now 10066) was in all likelihood a private access drive (the Cielo spur) up from Cielo proper. It was probably constructed expressly to develop 10050, and the other houses along the Cielo spur (now 5 I believe, 2 in 1969) were developed as an afterthought.

You'll note the odd address sequence on Cielo. The houses on the spur, including 10050, have their address frontage on Cielo proper, not the spur. All of the houses on the spur either front directly (like 10050), or are flag lots, so that the address sequence runs along Cielo proper, not the spur. This is why I believe the other houses were developed as an afterthought.

JC said...

I assumed that was a little joke that QT was playing.

Mon Durphy said...

You'd have to find out the building history of the houses down the Cielo cul de sac, there's a history to those homes

Mon Durphy said...

By your answer I can tell you've never been associated with anyone addicted to opiates, most become involved because of legimate pain problems then become addicted because of brain chemistry

shoegazer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shoegazer said...

On 03 Aug 2019, Mon Durphy said:

"You'd have to find out the building history of the houses down the Cielo cul de sac, there's a history to those homes"

That's right, and here's how...

https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapsearch?c=-118.43333353878012,34.09462910288379,20

shoegazer said...

On 03 Aug 2019 Mon Durphy said:

"By your answer I can tell you've never been associated with anyone addicted to opiates, most become involved because of legimate pain problems then become addicted because of brain chemistry."

I beg to differ. I speak from first-hand experience, and had a nearly four year run with OxyContin. 80 mg per day, in two 40 mg doses. There was no time during that 3.5-4 years that my bloodstream didn't have a significant amount of oxycodone in it.

Never missed a dose, and it's like I joked with my doctor,

"There's no need to ask the patient if he's taking his medication...:."

So while you may miss your blood pressure medication, you won't miss your Oxycontin dose, of that you can be sure.

Let's clarify it: the problems today are mostly opioids, not opiates, and that's because you can manufacture opioids from whole cloth, and do not need to rely on a agriculturally produced commodity.

So you have on the one hand opium, heroin, morphine, codeine, and a few others. They are potent, but limited in potency when compared to opioids.

And for opioids you have a huge pallet: hydromorphone, oxycodone, fentanyl (approx 100x the potency of morphine), on up to the large animal opioids such as carfenatil, which is 10K--yep, you read that right--more potent than morphine.

Four years, plus the complete withdrawal and onset of normalcy (6 weeks in my case) is a L-O-N-G time to think about how it works, why some can stop and others can't. You read blogs, research articles, read opioid user group message boards just like some read the TLB boards. Owing to this, when I took my last dose, I was able to write a program that calculated the amount of oxycodone remaining in my bloodstream until it was in 12 decimal places. At that point it was 6 weeks until I felt like my old self.

All that is 7 years in the past. I know what I'm talking about.

shoegazer said...

On 02 Aug 2019 JC said:

"I assumed that was a little joke that QT was playing..."

Not sure what you're referencing, JC, but I suspect that it was the acid cigarette. If so, may I ask: what was supposed to be funny about it? Would anyone have "gotten" it if no one had mentioned it?

To me, it sounds more like an error in details.

Gorodish said...

shoegazer typed:
That's right, and here's how...

https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/mapsearch?c=-118.43333353878012,34.09462910288379,20


Interestingly, it appears the former Kott house at 10070 Cielo followed suit with 10050/10066 and changed their address number to 10170. Also I found it amusing that the fourth house down the cul de sac from the former Altobelli house, 10100 Cielo (the David Oman "paranormal activities house, built in 2002), shows delinquent in taxes.

John Seger said...

That is amusing that the 10100 Cielo (the David Oman house is delinquent in taxes. That guy is a total jerk and a farce. From his movie that never saw a release, shot 15 years ago, to exploiting the Rate murders with ghost seance/tours of his home. I hope he loses the house and has to move out. His shenanigans are tired, annoying and rude.

John Seger said...

Sorry about the spelling error. I meant "Tate" not "rate." For some reason, reply to this board on my Android is difficult as background text is appearing in the area I am typing, making it extremely difficult to see what I typed. It is weird as I don't have this issue with this board on my laptop. Just on my Android phone recently. And I am on the most current version of Android, 9.0 "pie."

JC said...

A reference to drug hysteria and drug misinformation rife at the time.

shoegazer said...

Quite a stretch, JC.

I remember the time well...it makes even less sense because of it.

Nah, Tarantino screwed the pooch on this one.

starviego said...

The movie was a bore. The movie didn't seem to have a focus. The portrayal of the Family were the only good parts, and then only because they were over-the-top stupid.

JC said...

Yet you don't remember the drug hysteria and misinformation of the time?

I was only 8 years old, and remember it quite clearly.

shoegazer said...

Hah!

Hah! Hah!

Now that's a joke, JC, in case you wanted to know...

another anonymous said...

It was one of the worst films I have ever watched! I went because of the actors who did a fine job of acting. I would have walked out and asked for my money back, if I had driven myself to the theater. I was thirty years old in 1969 and never heard the four letter word used so freely as in this movie. It was over the top vulgar! What ever happened to movies that told a story without foul language?
People who have " A very limited vocabulary" express themselves in that way. That movie was more about the use of four letter words and lots of wasted driving time to make it a long boring movie
Sorry that some very fine actors were involved in this sad excuse for a entertaining movie!

John Seger said...

So, you are 80 years old and don't like the "f" word? The movie was brilliant and maybe you should stick to "The wizard of Oz."

Crazy Beens said...

That was the first thing I noticed. I was the youngest person in the theatre.

Doug said...

If you have never seen THE WRECKING CREW...here's a link to the FULL MOVIE at Dailymotion

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1rv6ca