It's pretty confusing if you don't know the context but was enjoyable to me anyways. I really didn't know what was happening most of the time but it didn't matter cuz I was invested anyway. A second watch would probably be even more enjoyable.
DISCLAIMER: I did not see this movie in its original language(English), but in a dubbed version(Italian). I may have missed some nuances.
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is a very Tarantino movie. I enjoyed but as much as I expected.
Let's start with the positives.
The cast was great. DiCaprio and Pitt were phenomenal. The supporting cast was also good, especially Margaret Qualley(though I do have a soft spot for her) and Julia Butters. I was very impressed by her portrayal of a child actress, I look forward to her career.
The movie was shot very well, as you would expect from Tarantino. It really did have that 60s/70s vibe and I liked it. Some scenes reminded me, in the way they were shot, of some western of that era, like when Brad Pitt's character is at the Manson hideout.
The music was pretty on point, but nothing memorable for me. A lot of classics were in the soundtrack; Hush by Deep Purple will never not pump me up.
Now the sore point. The plot. If you didn't know about the Tate murders and the Manson family, it will not make much sense; and if you do, it still feels kinda meh. The movie showed us a lot of scenes with Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and it barely serves a purpose. I guess the idea was that the audience would expect something and instead the movie does the opposite; it felt like a cheap trick and a waste of screentime.
In the end, it's an entertaining movie with a few shortfalls. I never felt bored and that's saying something considering that in two hours and a half happens surprisingly little. There are some great scenes like when Cliff is searching for Spahn in the ranch(so tense) or the flashback of why that producer won't work Cliff, and even the last scene is fun, in its own, almost Inglourious Basterds, way. Plus, the friendship between Rick and Dalton was one of the best I've ever seen. No forced conflict, no drama, just "more than a brother, less than a wife".
7.5/10
I'm not a big fan of Tarantino, I enjoy his movies but I'm of the opinion that he has become overrated and most of his movies are merely filled with memberberry-gimmicks and edgy language or violence on top of his appropriation of other movies and gratuitious scenes to indulge his foot-fetish.
Most of the movie I was wondering where it was going and as I was watching one reference after the other, fast cuts with music jumping from one classic song to the other I figured it was going to be another typical Tarantino movie. I enjoyed certain scenes, I enjoyed the actors, I enjoyed DiCaprio and Pitt, I enjoyed Margot Robbies legs and short skirt. But something was still not there for me, sure we had plenty of feet and Quentin failed to pan the camera a bit lower in certain shots but it was still a Tarantino movie: all flash, no substance.
Things started to get better with the hippie commune scene where the expected didn't happen no matter how long it dragged out but still... A narrator is introduced at one point which is completely different from what came before.
In the end though this is one of those movies that is made by it's ending and with it you can appreciate what came before a bit more. Is it a good movie? Sure. Are there better movies? Hell yes. Is this Tarantino's best? Or worst? No. Is this a masterpiece: no.
That big fight scene at the end has to be one of the most Tarantino scenes I've seen. I was getting really excited during that fight as well, but when Rick torches her, it's just like okay now what. bit of a disappointing climax though.
This film also relies too much on you knowing about the Manson family murders, which I did not.
The ABC of ”Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”
The Awesome
Tarantino has finally grown up and left his violent revenge stories behind in favor of a more polished period drama.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt make for an amazing duo, but they also stand out on their own. DiCaprio is a desperate alcoholic and “has been”, while Pitt is the tough stunt double with a troubled past.
Margot Robbie makes a small but very impactful appearance.
The characters and the setting feel fleshed out and the movie deals with several problems still present in today’s world.
The late 60s period feel is amazingly realistic and detailed, and the entire film is an obvious love letter to the LA and Hollywood of that era.
That delicious final act is true Tarantino, with a wonderfully violent fight scene and a major twist ending.
Al Pacino, Kurt Russell and Michael Madsen appear in small but great roles.
Tarantino nails the directing, writing and dialogue once again.
I have always loved the twisted humor in Tarantino’s movies and this one is no exception.
Some amazing build-up to the climax.
The Betwixt
Less of an over-violent adventure and more of a character driven drama – the Sharon Tate murder is a subplot rather than the driving force behind the film.
The Crappy
Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate is supposed to be the angelic symbol of the film, but I wish Tarantino would have given her more screen time.
The middle part is slowed down considerably and drags out a tiny bit before the big finale.
The story could be more evenly paced, with the most interesting parts taking place at the beginning and the end of the film.
Despite centering around the Manson family, their presence is never fully felt and could have been more palpable.
This cast has to be one of the best in film history!
This movie was almost 3h long. And with that it was pretty much 2h30 too long. Even more than Pulp Fiction this is just a random collection of pointless scenes being exploited for Tarantinos fetishes and goal to stuff as much 60ies and 70ies fanboy dreams into his scenes as possible, just for the sake of it. Because people will eat anything out of his hand, even dog food.
There were about three, max. four, good scenes in it. Scenes that you can cut down, put onto YouTube, stripping them from their context and show someone with no clue, and they'll probably enjoy it more than you did cuz they didnt have to sit through 2h30 of boring junk to see it.
DiCaprio nailed his role, he synced very, very well with Brad Pitt.
Margot Robbie was probably the most wasted casting of the century and I take many issues in Tarantinos portrayal of Roman Polanski as a cool, total OK guy.
And I know, people will tell me, "Tarantino writes amazing dialogue, he knows cinema better than anyone else". Blabla. Im sorry. I dont buy it. I can watch gore, sexual innuendos and funny scenes elsewhere, in a more condensed and frankly better fashion.
And yeah, i didnt like Pulp Fiction either, nor Django. But I freaking love Inglorious Bastards and The Hateful Eight, so I don't know. Maybe i like Tarantino in settings that provide no way for him to fulfill his fetishes and daydreams.
BOOORIIING !!!
If you see the names "Tarantino" "DiCaprio" "Brad" "Margot" you are waiting a wonderful movie. However, in this movie I checked my watch to understand "How many minutes did I waste with this movie". In the whole movie, nothing is happening. For example, you are seeing Margot Robbie for at most 10 minutes, and she is dancing or not talking. They just used the power of the names to attract people.
Long, plodding but exceptionally well made with an explosively "Tarantino" ending, OUATIH is difficult to recommend but enjoyable to watch. Outside of it's Hollywood history lessons and 60's and 70's nostalgia, viewers may be disappointed by the pictures surprising lack of signature dialogue or overt violence that usually comes with Quentins name when attached to a motion picture. But if you put stock in overal production value, clever links/theming through the characters on screen, and sweeping statements about the state of Hollywood both now and then, OUATIH might just be worth the cost of admission.
Personally, I'm still very much a fan of Tarantino's heyday with Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, Django and Inglorious being up on my favourites. These movies seem to be much more immediately entertaining, while still offering Quentins usual attentitive level of detail and depth. OUATIH offers the depth, but never really pulls out all of the Tarantino hallmarks you've come to expect, so I'm giving it a 7/10.
Edit: I've mused over this movie for 24 hours and I think it's going up a point. Some of it's dialogue is pretty memorable and the themes on show upon reflexion are much deeper and open to interpretation than I initially thought. Definitely going to give this one another spin when it hits streaming services/digital download.
Interesting points of note (And thus, spoilers):
All of Cliff Booth's solo scenes are shot like an old western. The long walk to Georges cabin, the watching bystanders, very "old western" inspired filming. In the final scene, it is shown that Cliff is stabbed in the hip. Rick Dalton says, while reading his book on set, that Easy Breezy was the coolest guy, until he hurt his hip. This is an interesting juxtaposition between Cliff and Ricks characters. Rick is desperately trying to be the cowboy that Cliff is living as on the daily.
Rick mentions at the start of the movie, when Roman Polanski pulls up next to him with Sharon in the car, that he could be one pool party away from being in a Polanski movie. At the end of the movie, after roasting the Manson killer in his pool, he is invited into the Polanski residence, which would assumedly lead to him starring in one of his movies. Cool bit of foreshadowing.
Pretty good, though it meanders a bit.
I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the Manson Family and the Tate murders, if you're not already, to give you a better idea of what's going on in the world around the characters.
I expect this to receive several Oscar nominations, if for no other reason than its portrayal of Hollywood, and there's nothing the Academy loves more than itself. :laughing:
What a hogwash!! With all these big names in the movie it still turned out to be a total waste of time. In this almost three hour long torture there were maybe two or three exciting scenes. There was literally no story and I'm still thinking what was the point of all this??
Great cast, very good acting. Good style, it feels like hanging out with the guys in the 70s. However that’s all that this movie is - hanging out with them. There is simply no story. It feels like Tarantino stole my time :(
This movie is so boring! Am i the only ?
[7.5/10] I should have known. The original title for Quentin Tarantino’s alternate universe World War II story was “Once Upon a Time in Nazi-Occupied France”. The recycling of the title should have prepared me for the fact that this was not just going to be the story a few composite characters made disturbingly adjacent to the Tate Murders. Instead, it is another alternate history tale, where the Manson Family decides to go after a neighboring character actor, only to be stopped in their tracks by his trusty stunt double and a conveniently-placed flame thrower.
What I can’t tell you is why. The cinch of “What If?” stories is examining the import of the differences between one timeline and another. There is catharsis, and also indictment on both sides of the screen, to see the Basterds wipe out the Nazi brass. And I suppose, in a similar way, there is relief in seeing Tarantino steer his film so close to the grisly deeds that shocked a nation’s conscience, only to show our would-be heroes preventing it. But Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood doesn't feel like it’s making the same sort of point.
Instead, it’s a character story. The Tate Murders, the atmosphere of famous people around and averting disaster, feels in service of the two made-up protagonists than the other way around. It’s a story about a solid actor, pushing through his fuck-upery and potentially stumbling onto his big break. And it’s also about his best friend -- put upon but uncomplaining and possessing more sense and ability than his benefactor -- keeping the aspiring thespian out of trouble.
But it’s also just a slice of life movie. Once Upon a Time... is more a collection of loosely connected vignettes set around a particular time and place than it is a narrative. There’s nothing wrong with that. Say what you will about Tarantino, but the man knows how to write a scene. The sixties texture is superb. The needle drops are outstanding. The interactions are compelling if a touch rudderless. For a nearly three hour movie where not much of consequence happens until the final reel, it’s never boring, which is no small feat.
In its best mode, the film works as a character study for its three (well, two and a half) main characters. Rick Dalton’s ride as a struggling actor is compelling. The notion of a man who feels like he’s on the verge of being a has-been, finding his light and, through the most bizarre of circumstances, maybe catching his big break, is an engaging one. Tarantino himself has rescued the careers of more than one talented character actor all but forgotten by the Hollywood machine. There’s something about Dalton’s story that is, if nothing else, true to Tarantino’s brand in that the big upshot of the Tate Murders being largely averted is that a solid performer gets his unexpected chance to shine.
Along the way, the film wrings the pathos from a fuck-up thinking that he’s at the end of his rope, finding a performance he wasn’t sure he had in him, and proving to himself that he can do this before his prayers are answered. Leonardo DiCaprio occasionally veers into his “more acting, not better acting” mode, but he delivers the performance called for in his and Dalton’s key scene, and finds the wounded heart of a well-to-do manchild.
Brad Pitt is also a joy to watch as Dalton’s stunt double, Cliff Booth. There’s a cool-under-pressure matter of factness to the character, cutting the figure of someone who takes all the ridiculous or insane things he confronts on a daily basis in stride. It’s hard to say what the point of Cliff is, beyond being a sort of underappreciated guardian angel, whose seemingly done some bad shit but who seems to look out for people when he doesn't necessarily have to. He’s an engaging presence, perhaps there to show how people whose names you’ve never heard of end up having outsized, essential roles in the lives of the people whose names you do. Dalton seems to recognize that in the end, vindicating a camaraderie that he didn’t quite appreciate until it saved his life.
And then there’s Sharon Tate. For all the controversy around Margot Robbie’s screen time and number of lines in this movie, it’s fair to question what purpose her and Tarantino’s realization of Tate serves. As the only real person to have a major presence in the film, hers comes the closest to the “for want of a nail” theme in a typical alternate history story. You get the sense of someone excited about her work, ready for and worthy of more, making her an almost angelic presence in the film. If there’s anything that sells the tragedy of what happened in real life, the pleasing joy of wondering of what preventing it would mean, it comes in the form of saving someone who, in the film at least, is so pure.
That said, this is a film that shows some blind spots. There’s a lot of male gaze here, not just on Robbie -- who mostly dances and smiles through the feature -- but also on the female members of the Manson family who, like Robbie, are conspicuously panned and shot and framed with certain features emphasized for little-to-no narrative reason. This is also still a Tarantino film, so you’re going to have multiple prominent shots of bare feet, and for a writer who’s created some outstanding female characters, they largely get the short shrift here.
You’re also going to get the things Tarantino does well here. He creates one-scene (technically two-scene) wonders like a little girl who is a committed and sensitive thespian. You get tense scene construction when Cliff visits the Spahn Ranch or the Manson Family invades Dalton’s home. You get bright primary colors and creative shots while period-appropriate tunes play in the background. You get the combination of the funny and the gory in the way that’s becoming a calling card for the director, from an attacker amusingly getting subdued with a big can of dog food, to a disquieting sequence where another’s skull is smashed in by the fireplace. If your goal is to just hang out with Tarantino’s usual trappings for 2+ hours, Once Upon a Time... is the movie for you.
But if you want more than a mostly low key day in the life of some nicely-sketched but not overly memorable characters, you should probably look elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with crafting a world, a set of personalities, that it’s just enjoyable to spend time with. But with Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood, Tarantino seems to want to make some grander statement with his break from real life events and focus on a pair of relative nobodies who stumble into snuffing out a tragedy, but unlike his protagonist, he never quite gets there.
All these huge names and you come up with that? This has to be the best worst horrible movie ever. Waste of time.
The Academy has lost its mind. This is awful
“When you come to the end of the line, with a buddy who is more than a brother and a little less than a wife, getting blind drunk together is really the only way to say farewell.”
‘Once Upon a Time In Hollywood’ is a chilled blast from the past told like a fairy tale. It’s both aimless and yet meaningful with the commentary on the new era in Hollywood. The movie pays tribute to old Hollywood, film making, Sharon Tate, stunt work, and actors. This is perhaps Tarantino’s most personal and mature movie his made, until the last 10 minutes (which I love) goes complete ape sh*t.
I can’t think of any other director where the passion and love for movies is so transparent through Tarantino's craft. He’s such an old school film maker that he and Martin Scorsese are the last golden age directors, as every new release feels like an event. In this movie, Quentin presents 69’ Hollywood at its peak, as he remembers it from his childhood. He manages to rebuild classy LA thanks to the crew and creative team.
Bright neon lights, fashionable clothes, and late 60’s automobiles. There’s a couple of scenes where Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), drives around LA and there are long shots that shows off the environment and it’s amazing the amount of detail and effort went into the setting - with Robert Richardson brilliant Cinematography bringing it all alive.
Leonardo DiCaprio was absolutely excellent as the fading Western star, Rick F**king Dalton. Dalton, a self-centered, yet vulnerable actor that you both laugh and pity. I will often forget about DiCaprio comedic chops, something similar to Ryan Gosling. I also like the subtle stutter that’s sprinkled through out, which is sad when given some thought that it’s something he’s got to deal with. There’s a heartfelt scene where Dalton tells his young co-star about a book his reading and mid way through explaining the story he realises it mirrors his life, and breaks down in tears with me crying with him. Yep, I teared up in a Tarantino movie. Leo was the pulse of the movie.
Brad Pitt was amazing as the deadpan and cool Cliff Booth. This is probably my favorite performance from him. Cliff’s main character trait is his strength and he demonstrates it multiple times, but leaves the scene before anything can escalate. The chemistry between Leo and Brad was electric. Pitt was the meat of the movie.
Margot Robbie was an absolute delight portraying the late Sharon Tate. Despite her slim screen time, but whenever she has screen time, I couldn’t help but smile. I instantly fell in love with her and it’s painfully to think something so sweet and pure could be taken away from us by brainwashed zombies who don’t deserve a life, just a jail cell. I thought her portrayal in the movie was a beautiful tribute and how they handle her gives new life into her legacy.
There’s a great scene where Sharon Tate watches a movie in cinemas that’s she’s in, but instead of Margot Robbie re-creating those scenes, they just show the real Sharon Tate in the movie. Now people were left a bit confused over this decision, although it’s clear to me that erasing the real Tate out of the movie would be more disrespectful to her memory, so leaving her in is a touching tribute to her career and her work. Robbie was the heart of the movie.
The other supporting cast all did terrific with the little screen time most of them had. Kurt Russell makes a welcoming return as a character that I assume is Stuntman Mike from 'Death Proof' - either way still a welcoming presence. He’s also the narrator and I find it hilarious whenever he tries to pronounce Italian movie titles. Al Pacino was a blast to watch as the tight and yet colorful producer. Mike Moh portrayal of Bruce Lee may have sparked some controversy recently, but I thought he was entertaining regardless and I don’t really think it mocks his legacy at all. I mean, this is the same director who made a four hour movie honoring the legend. Margaret Qualley was crazy good as the hippie girl who’s brain washed into a cult family. It’s crazy to know that Damon Herriman has played Charles Manson twice in the same year and month for this movie and the TV show ‘Mindhunter’, which you should totally check out by the way.
Julia Butters, Luke Perry, Timothy Olyphant, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, and Damian Lewis - a stellar cast that did a stellar job.
After letting the film sit for awhile, there’s so many memorable lines that I would often catch myself recreating just from memory after seeing it twice. There’s so many great moments as well. The lights of LA coming to life at the dust of dawn, or the suspenseful scenes that actually got me feeling tense watching it. Without spoiling anything, but the Spahn Ranch scene where the Manson family stares down a defenseless Cliff Booth as he tries to speak to an old friend was terrifying - reminds me of the opening scene of ‘Inglorious Bastards’, in terms of building up tension that you wait in anticipation to explode.
Still, I think this is the best representation of the Manson family I’ve seen in any movie...by portraying them as absolute buffoons.
And of course with it being a Tarantino movie, the music is lost treasure revived for a modern generation. Always fantastic and incredibly catchy. I can’t think of anything better than Cliff driving around LA with the song ‘Bring a Little Lovin’ playing in the background.
Overall rating: I’ve seen this movie twice already and I still have a desire to watch it again. This is slowly creeping up to being my favorite Quentin Tarantino movie, but time will tell I guess.
I really didn't understand the hype. Everyone was saying how good this film is, but I literally fell asleep about 90 minutes in. There is no plot. I get that the production value is great, the acting is fantastic. But there is no story. Maybe one of the worst experiences I have ever had in a movie theater.
Big names with poor story!
I'm so happy that I didn't watch this at the cinema. This movie sets a new definition for boredom. 2h pure pain - absolutely no story. I agree thought Jackie Brown was his worst movie but this beats it easily.
This movie is unbelievably bad.
Absolutely fantastic. Tarantino at his best.
The most satisfying ending of cinema history.
There are too few highlights for this to be a great movie. Personally, I considered both scenes with interactions between Leo and Julia Butters the best parts. Leo generally did a great job with presenting the vulnerable side of his character.
Enjoyed every damn minute of this one. The bromance between Rick and Cliff (Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt), the amazing scene between Leo and Timothy Olyphant (always epic to see him with a cowboy hat), Dewey Crowe showing up for a minute, the scenes with Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate were something else. Pitt's visit to the Hippie place. He should've taken Eric Cartman with him. Brandy the dog! Al Pacino as a casting agent! Even Kurt Russell showed up! Such a great cast. And that brutal ending? Flamethrower? And after all that, casually going over to your neighbors for a drink? Such a great ending. I also really enjoyed the opening with the Bounty Law shots! And those scenes about the Spaghetti Westerns! Loved it! Leo in the great escape? Fun stuff!
The only part I didn't really liked was the Bruce Lee bit, thought he role would be different, instead he was a way to show us Cliff is badass and he can fight, so we can believe that ending.
Anyway, really enjoyed those 160 minutes! Read something today about the 4-hour cut, I'm ready for that version! I loved Tarantino's love letter to the golden-age of Hollywood! One of his finest!
Expectations for the movie were average / high. I know some of Tarantino's work, and as a fan I was hoping for something to win me over. And it did.
The movie tells the daily life of some characters in the Hollywood universe and does it very well. I wonder how something so simple can make the viewer so clinging to the screen. Camera angles Tarantino style, history Tarantino style, scenes Tarantino style, a Tarantino movie.
Highlight for the fantastic performance of DiCaprio, which played an excellent role. I expected a different role from Robbie, perhaps because I see her a lot like Harley, a completely different role. And as for the performance of Timothy Olyphant, I found it quite mediocre ...
I heard a lot of criticism in general that the film was different from Tarantino's usual record, and even criticism of Bruce Lee's situation. I saw nothing wrong in either situation.
One of the most satisfying movies I've ever seen.
Worst movie I have seen in a really long time. Great actors but you leave the theater not knowing what the hell you watched for 2 and a half hours and enjoying a total of 5 minutes at the end of the movie.
Save your money.
I loved the movie and I'm pretty stocked if the rumor of the 4 hour Netflix cut is true, BUT I totally understand the people who didn't like it. It's not for everybody and it's not a typical Tarantino flick.
Things that look cool the movie. Felt like one big trailer of disjointed parts. If anyone else made this movie it would be a joke. QT is beyond running out of ideas now. This is some death bed flashback of his memories.
Quentons weakest film yet. bradd pitt and leonardo were great.
Brad Pitt's character honestly was the most amazing part of the movie. His scenes were truly gold!
Hey Quentin, we don't care about your nostalgia mania. Give us good movies like you did when you was a young director.
A fake movie with a ridiculous ending.
Had to happen one day but Tarantino finally made an average film. His 8th weakest film with only Jackie Brown worse. Far too long and too slow. Still my fave director but I won’t be in a hurry to rewatch this one.
it's refreshing to have this movie in nowadays dominated world of remakes and superhero movies. a lot of movies are full of mediocre scene and only save the best for climax, here every scene felt genuinely well made, with a lot of detail and character development. the plot may not have been continuous, in fact, it did not have a clear direction like "save the world" or "escape the haunted house" like in other movies. but that's exactly the beauty of it, not following cliches at all.
My first reaction was, "Who is the audience for this?" Manson, Helter Skelter, the Hollywood of Sharon Tate are almost in the forgotten or unknown history of anyone under 40. Will the audience pick up the subtle establishment of these historical characters? Unless they go to the theatre prepped with the significance of the dates, will they know the context of the plot. If they think this is a movie about the fading trajectory of Hollywood careers, they will find the plot very slow and plodding. If they are knowledgable enough to know the Sharon Tate's story, they may feel the weight of the inevitable hanging over the whole piece, but, even with this stellar cast and a pervading anticipation of doom, this movie spends a lot of time on nothing. Personally, I think the cheat at the end is not a good enough payoff for the 161 minutes. The acting is good enough for a 6 (fair) out of 10, but Tarantino come close to boring us to death or, worse yet, disrespecting the victims of a shocking evil. [Criminal Dramedy?]
I saw this on Saturday introduced by the man himself, QT, and it was spectacular. Got tickets to see it 3 more times already. So good!
Saw this tonight for the 7th time and I'm trying to make that the last time. I could watch this beaut all day!!!!
This felt disjointed and scattershot for most of the film's runtime, but I enjoyed the way the storytelling hopped around. There was something building and embarrassingly, I caught on awfully late. The three main actors were great. Margot Robbie is just beautiful and likeable. Brad Pitt is cool, tough and caring. DiCaprio's portrayal of the fictional Rick Dalton is the MVP, though. He's such a multi-dimensional character and it would be fun to see more of his Dalton's behind-the scenes antics.
The revisionist history tale is fine, but it's always about the dialog with Tarantino. It was fun to just follow these characters around.
Save your time and money, unless you want to take a nap in a dark room with some talented actors.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, directed by Quentin Tarantino, is a fairy tale set in the waning days of Hollywood's golden age in 1969. The movie features a talented ensemble cast and follows the story of aging TV actor Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and his stuntman Cliff Booth (Pitt) as they navigate the changing Hollywood landscape and the emergence of the dark undercurrent symbolized by the Manson family. The core of the movie is the relationship between Rick and Cliff, and DiCaprio and Pitt deliver strong performances individually and as a pair. Robbie's portrayal of Sharon Tate is also captivating, but her screen time is limited. The film has some of Tarantino's signature tropes, but compared to his previous work, it is less punchy and memorable and is instead a more patient and subdued approach. Though the story is engaging, the movie is too long and could benefit from some harsher editing. Overall, While it may not be his best film, it is still a solid effort and worth watching.
Érase una vez en Hollywood, dirigida por Quentin Tarantino, es un cuento de hadas ambientado en los últimos días de la época dorada de Hollywood en 1969. La película cuenta con un elenco talentoso y sigue la historia del envejecido actor de televisión Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) y su el doble de acción Cliff Booth (Pitt) mientras navegan por el cambiante paisaje de Hollywood y el surgimiento del oscuro trasfondo simbolizado por la familia Manson. El núcleo de la película es la relación entre Rick y Cliff, y DiCaprio y Pitt ofrecen sólidas actuaciones individualmente y como pareja. La interpretación de Robbie de Sharon Tate también es cautivadora, pero su tiempo de pantalla es limitado. La película tiene algunos de los tropos característicos de Tarantino, pero en comparación con su trabajo anterior, es menos impactante y memorable y, en cambio, es un enfoque más paciente y moderado. Aunque la historia es atractiva, la película es demasiado larga y podría beneficiarse de una edición más dura. En general, si bien puede que no sea su mejor película, sigue siendo un esfuerzo sólido y vale la pena verla.
The culmination of Quentin Tarantino is probably the most well-made film in his filmography. The producers and all the crew have done a wonderful job, and above all, Quentin Tarantino has upgraded his boundaries to the next level. I no longer have anything more to ask for in a film. But Tarantino always bounces off these moods, and that is what makes him so respectable.
What is surprising is that Tarantino did not receive an Oscar for Best Screenplay for this film. The screenplay for this film is one of the best and most captivating of his career, but when it comes to the Oscars, I get the impression that it was beaten out by a crappy film.
But Stanley Kubrick has already taught us that the Oscar is not everything.
An entertaining movie filled with fantastic performances and gripping dialogue. Although, this movie is slightly directionless as I was 2/3rds of the way through the movie and had no idea where it was trying to take me. Despite that fact, I still was engaged and had a great time watching. The third act is so off the walls and crazy that it makes the entire slow burn of the film worth every second.
Score: 88%
Verdict: Excellent
I never thought I would hate a Tarantino movie, but this was plain boring.
I have seen it twice now and I love it more. People who care about plot, plot, plot need to be exposed to other type of cinema. Never heard of hang out movies?
Great acting, great cast (can’t really go wrong can you Quinten?) However the story (what little there is) is all over the place.
"Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood" is a film that basically tells no story, but that beautifully conveys the atmosphere of Los Angeles during the final days of the Golden Age of Hollywood and the zenith of hippie culture. It's also a sharp meta-commentary of stardom and cinema, as well as an obvious homage to the director's favorite film genres. The lack of plot is balanced by Tarantino's masterful direction, the excellent screenplay, and the flawless acting performances. Rick Dalton and his stunt Cliff Booth are the embodiment of the "old" Hollywood, while rising star Sharon Tate represents a new way of life and filmmaking. The two worlds run parallel for the whole film only to cross in the end with the historical revision of the Tate murders. Cliff is introduced as basically Rick's minion and initially seems to only have a marginal role, but the relationship between the two becomes the main driving force of the film. I liked how their opposite lifestyles and personalities managed to complete each other.
While Sharon's character works well as a double to Rick's, her scenes ultimately felt like unnecessary screen time. She was supposed to be at the center of the events, but unfortunately, we barely get to see her involved. Her contribution to the plot is so minimal that if you don't know about the Tate murders you would feel disoriented. This is the only real problem of the movie: it acquires most of its value only if you are familiar with the source material.
Overall, this film has a lot of brilliant dialogues and iconic scenes that are classic Tarantino, but it also has a more mature tone and relaxed pace that might displease long-time fans. It's perfectly crafted but more focus on the plot wouldn't hurt.
Tarantino doing what he knows best! Btw, it is nice to know the C. Manson story before watching the movie
"Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood" vibrates with the energy of a Tarantino's classic - yet it brings up a new, refreshing point, standing out from all the director's previous works.
Loved it!
Good acting, shitty story. Or one must be american to understand it.
Tarantino's problem is that he has fallen in love with himself so much that he no longer makes movies, he parodies his own movies. It was already horrible the hateful 8, dialogues and Tarantinian dialogues without any grace. And now he gives us 3 hours of soporific cinema. Now all the films last 3 hours, but at least some of them do not have 1.5 leftovers.
Disappointing. It feels like Tarantino had nothing to 'say' with this movie. I think he just liked the idea of filming a bunch of 60s-themed stuff... And while he's very good at that, it didn't need to be almost 3 hours long.
From writer/director Quentin Tarantino comes the period drama Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood. A “what if” historical fiction like Inglourious Basterds, the film looks at the 1969 Manson Family Murders supposing that an aging action star and his stuntman had been living next door to Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate. Featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Kurt Russell, and Dakota Fanning, the film has an impressive cast; though most of the roles (apart from DiCaprio and Pitt) are little more than extended cameos. And the pacing is incredible slow, fetishizing old Hollywood as Tarantino is want to do. Still, his penchant for witty, engaging dialog is in full effect. While it meanders about too long and its blurring of fantasy and reality feels like a cheat, Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is entertaining and fun (to a point).
Worst film I have seen in many years.
Its the best movie from tarantino, acting very good, action was good, everything was good
Too long, too boring. Tarantino is getting old :disappointed:
Upon further review, (re-re-re-re-viewing), it has come to my attention that ONCE UPON A TIME IN . . . HOLLYWOOD is without question one of the most significant, poignant, and meaningfully-layered American films made in the last 50 years.
There exists a quality that can only be appreciated when you remove any personal or emotional relationship(s) to the all previous work by Quentin Tarantino; additionally, there exists further quality that can only be appreciated when one views this film within the context of Quentin Tarantino’s filmic canon – yet I stress again, that this consideration cannot be accessed or achieved if the viewer is constantly trying to compare this single film against any previous Tarantino film for better or worse.
Tertiarily (sp?): The production design in this (“capital F”) Film, including the anything and everything from script supervisor, dialect coach, stunt coordinators, VFX – and including but not limited to – audio effects, and of course editing, will been held in the highest regard for decades to come. Especially with respect to anyone with a personal interest or aspiration to fully realizing the extent to which very few filmmakers (in 2019 and moving forward) still go as a means to honor & respect the process through which the many styles, aesthetics, and techniques have been developed – from the fledgling infancy of storytelling with a camera, throughout the mid-20th century’s boon in serialized TV productions and the inherent impact said productions had on the studio industry, all the way up to and including the late 20th & early 21st century.
While this story could have been told by someone other than Quentin Tarantino, it would invariably have been flawed beyond recognition; as it would have lacked the Tarantino’s personal affection, without his worship & tributary form, and (this should go without saying) it would have lacked the screenplay from which every other production decision was blatantly informed down to the fiber of every detail, dialogue, and scene.
Tarantino has often been on record as considering Paul Thomas Anderson as his closest friend as well as the only currently-working American filmmaker who he (Tarantino) considers to be his superior, or perhaps on his best days, his equal. While Quentin Tarantino was in production of making his 2009 film, “Inglorious Basterds,” he was interviewed and gave his thoughts on the new Paul Thomas Anderson film that had been released a year or so earlier, “There Will Be Blood.” Tarantino spoke with such high praise, with a sense of awe-struck appreciation for how great, “There Will Be Blood,” truly was – and remained upon a few more viewings. He closed by saying, “If my new movie (Inglorious Basterds) captures the potential I hope it does, and is considered to be among my personal greatest work, then it will ONLY HAVE BEEN SO because of a film like, “There Will Be Blood,” and Paul Thomas Anderson – who I feel privileged to know and to work within the same era of Cinema history.” (paraphrased; not verbatim quote.)
All this to say that regardless of your personal affection for previous Tarantino movies – which I’m sure at least one of which was informative and/or pivotal in your own experience as an audience member who appreciates movies that defy formalism & genre while somehow never forfeiting any substance for style – ONCE UPON A TIME IN . . . HOLLYWOOD should be watched (at least!) a handful of times before any sort of judgement is made on how you view it; not just in the context of Tarantino’s 9 canonical (insofar) films, but in the context of (again, capital F), Film history.
This movie is a piece of art. Tarantino's crown jewel.
The movie is great fun and well acted. My problem is that in Quentin Tarantino’s mind. Bruce Lee was an ego maniac bully. So he is portrayed as one here.
Jackie Chan who actually met him. Says Lee accidentally kicked Chan once and comforted him for hours. He felt so bad.
Otherwise the film is an entertaining character study and a fun fictional version of 1960’s Hollywood. If you have have a love for movies. You’ll probably appreciate it.
I can see why some critics called this an obituary to a lost Hollywood. It was very much a lyrical paean until the climax, and what a climax! Nice alternate history fix-up richly embroidered with real sights and sounds of the period. What could have improved it would have been a little more from inside the Family. I suppose he was trying not to glamorise them though. I watched it at home not in the cinema, and in two pieces over two nights. Then that gave me the idea: it should have been a series.
Why the FUCK they making a movie that changes the real history?
It's just ordinary FAKE MOVIE (like fake news)!
Brad Pitt's character honestly was the most amazing part of the movie. His scenes were truly gold!
Brad Pitt's character honestly was the most amazing part of the movie. His scenes were truly gold!
I found this a bit of a slog to be honest but I thought that it was well made. A lot of it didn't make sense to me as I'm British and therefore American history isn't my strong subject. Sharon Tate meant nothing to me and throughout the film I kept wondering why she was so prevalent in the second act.
Having read some of the other posts/comments I get it now so I may well have to watch this one again a some point.
after watching this movie.... still wondering what's the point of doing it? apart from Pitt i really didn't like it!
There's a lot to like here: great cast, acting, editing, music, etc, but the plot felt a bit aimless and drawn out.
Once upon a time in shit :poop: movie land. OMG the worst Quentin Tarantino movie ever !!! :thumbsdown: The cast of het the movie is great :muscle:, but that is the only thing thats great about this movie :sob:
It’s a fun ride. The acting from brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio was great. The stuff with Hollywood and behind the scenes of that was very interesting. It’s great how it shows the 60’s, and Dang that ending was crazy. For some people it may be too slow but for me it had me interested the whole time. If you’re not a fan of slower and longer movies this is not for you. Overall it’s a great movie altogether and is probably one of the best of the year behind Joker and The Irishman.
(8 out of 10)
A very fun Tarantino movie. not a great action and lot of exposition but overall very fun and good past-timer.
Had no idea what the hell I was watching the entire film
"It feels like Tarantino is so wrapped up in indulging in his own filmmaking style that he loses sight of what made his best movies work."
I’m going to state my bias right here, right now: I absolutely love Quentin Tarantino. There are a handful of film-makers that I discovered when I was first developing my tastes in cinema (Edgar Wright, Wes Anderson, Steven Spielberg, Tim Burton, Stanley Kubrick, The Coen Brothers and of course Tarantino), these directors will always have a place in my heart and as a result I may be easily persuaded to recommend their latest work. That being said Tim Burton’s Dumbo isn’t exactly going to be making my top 10 this year so don’t take too big a pitch of salt when I tell you that I might have a new best of the year contender.
I would be interested in how this film would be received by someone who is unfamiliar with the previous 8 (or 9 depending how you count them) Tarantino films. I think a large part of my love for this film is down to how it messes with the standard formula of a Tarantino movie while still offering many of the trademarks that have made his style iconic, however I have seen many critics and fans saying they were disappointed in the film for similar reasons. Either way it is clear that this film can only be read effectively through the eyes of the kind of person who knows what like a virgin is really about, what a quarter ponder with cheese is called in Paris and can recite Ezekiel 25:17 by heart.
This is probably the slowest film that Tarantino has brought out to date, large amounts of screen-time are dedicated to watching the characters drive through the painstakingly real looking sets or to fairly mundane conversations with no real baring on the overall plot. This has been an issue I have seen in many reviews but I have to say that it didn’t bother me, the cast are fantastic and so even the most pointless dialogue exchange feels engaging and as I mentioned before the attention to detail in the set design as well as the wardrobe makes every scene a treat to watch.
There are a couple of scenes that have caused controversy for this film. In the interest of keeping this spoiler free I will not go into detail here but lets just say that I don’t see what the problem is.
I do want to talk briefly about the ending, I will try to keep this as vague as I can but if you really want to go in blind then ignore the next paragraph.
A lot of people have compared this film to a fairy tale, given the unexpected and cathartic ending as well as the ‘Once Upon a Time’ title. For me this film reminded me more of a well told joke. A great comedian is able to keep their audience engaged for a long period of time while telling a seemingly mundane story, they will throw in little jokes and go on funny tangents only to come back at the end with the punch line. At the end of the movie when the sub-plot comes in focus and everything goes full Tarantino everyone in my cinema as laughing hysterically. I think that is what Tarantino wanted and what many critics are missing.
Ultimately, this a really great film. You should go see it.
Well the movie is actually good but it was so complicated to understand and in the end there is no point watching it. Although the movie is really cool but there are a lot of question marks about that. DiCaprio and Pitt play wonderful.
Movie that screams Tarantino on all four sides, is a good summary of all his filmography, including the best and the worst of it. The characters are very well built, evolve and relate very well to each other. It has some loose ends, such as the character of Margot Robbie who does not contribute much to the film unfortunately. The final scene is INSANE.
The cinematography and Tarantino's effort fully immerses the viewer into the sixties. That was amazing. But the movie was long and draggy and the story was terrible.
A lot of the movie is just kind of “hanging out” in Hollywood in 1969, I don’t love that idea but if you are gonna do it you might as well hang out with Cliff Booth (Pitt) and Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and to a lesser extent Sharon Tate (Robbie). Underrated sequence is when Sharon goes into a theater to see her movie with a crowd and soak in their reactions, that kind of lays it all out right there, of course you get fame and money but all of these people are playing dress up and make believe to entertain an audience. This isn’t the first time Tarantino has delved into the art of filmmaking and it crosses the borderline of pretentious self indulgence but still a good time at the movies.
Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Dakota Fanning, Tim Roth & Al Pacino all in one movie directed by Quentin Tarantino? This is gonna be good......
I would score it with a 6 but it gets one more point by the Flamethrower.
Don't let the impressive cast and director mislead you. This is one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. The acting and filming was pretty good, as you could expect, but the plot was just trash. Nothing happens for the first 2 hours of the movie. Literally, it just seems like a compilation of random scenes that have no continuity or greater story. The characters aren't very developed, and don't even get me started on Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) who is, simply put, useless and brings nothing to the story. As for the last 30-20mins of the film, it's just nuts. It makes no sense whatsoever, is extremely violent and graphic (which was the only interesting part of the film, but was a total contrast to the first two hours and made no sense) and the final ending afterwards isn't really an ending.
Don't waste your time with this movie! It may look good (I thought so too at first), but it's really not. The whole film just seems so pointless, it's hard to understand what the creators where trying to achieve here, or even what the story was about for that matter.
Way too long and way too boring!
Ultimately, disappointing individually acceptable story telling scenes that don't really add up to much collectively. Sure the last 30minutes were fun, in usual Tarantino fanfare, but that doesnt make up for the initial 2 hours. I can say with 100% confidence, that I will never see this again, and have truly no interest to.
I'm all for telling stories, and by all means, excellent build up, character development, drama, mystery, and intrigue, are all extremely important to creating a story. That said, this proved to be a very big waste of time with so little of that even having any reason to be there. Yes, I get it. He's a down on his luck actor, his friend has a bad (although possibly true) history of killing his wife, who can clearly fight and his dog is as poetically, and really obviously shown multiple times by Tarantino on purpose, a "WOLF DOG FOOD FOR MEAN DOGS" .
... but for the life of me, I can't understand why any of this needed to amount to almost 3 hours, when 80-90 minutes would have more than sufficed. This unfortunately, screams Tarantino for much of the past 2 decades.
It's fun to hangout with Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt and that's what the majority of the movie is. A lot of the hollywood behind the scenes stuff is interesting. This didn't have Tarantino's best dialogue or the best music and feels middle of the road for his movies but great overall.
I liked this more on a second watching knowing what type of movie this is and just enjoying the terrific performances, the awesome music, the great cinematography, the attention to detail and fun editing. Brad Pitt really is fantastic but so is DiCaprio, the whole eight whisky sours scene is perfect. It's a great hang and the ending is so absurd, I love it.
How does this movie have high rating. It’s boring as shit. 48 mins into movie for something interesting than 2 mins of something interesting. After that back to boring shit.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays one of his best roles of his entire career but Brad Pitt has the coolest character in cinema. I love this film ... especially the end!
Who criticizes the movie is a stupid progressive!
I'm sorry but I just don't get it.
Nothing happens in the entire film. You could easily edit it to 10 slow minutes and experience everything, so I guess the 2:40 hrs is the joke on viewer's account.
You'll enjoy it best by leaving it on to play on your TV while you're folding laundry, washing dishes etc.
Don't sit down and watch.
I gonna call here that the king is naked.
Had no idea what the hell I was watching the entire film
This movie was cool, really COOL!
although it may not be perfect, kind of slow, and maybe kind of "offensive" for some softies and snowflakes out there.. but despite all that it was absolutely cool and interesting.
The acting is 10/10 and it was the cast that made me watch this in the first place, Leonardo is the funniest he has ever been, and Brad is the most awesome he has ever been, Brad Pitt's character was just so freaking awesome!
(P.S. before you watch this movie read about or just research about Tate Murderes aka. The Mason Family murders, my sister didn't know about that story and she didn't understand much until I told her about that tragic event)
Fantastic movie. Every scene keeps you on the edge of your seat. Watched countless times, and will continue to watch over and over again. It is that good.
I've seen this several times now and I think it is a masterclass in film-making and cinematography.
I see a lot of comments here about being boring... Just to give a tiny bit of credibility to hese comments I would say the following - if the Cielo Dr address means nothing to you, I sympathise slightly. I think QT takes a lot for granted that Cielo, Sharon Tate, Jay Siebring would be recognisable to the audience for a specific reason.
And I think the scene with Bruce Dern is a misstep. I read he was allowed to improvise hut by doing so he muddies the water in that scene and loses vital momentum.
But what this film evidently shows us is a series of linked vignette scenarios that explain to us the essential elements that lead to the history rewrite at the end...
The relationship between Rick and Cliff; Rick's career situtaion; Rick's talent; Cliff's chequered past; Cliff's toughness; the Manson acolytes; Brandy the dog; the carefree luxury detached life in the celebrity bubble of Sharon Tate...
Which brings us to the end. We've seen Sharon Tate be nothing but angelic. Beautiful, innocent, sweet, entitled yet kind. If she were to be horribly slaughtered, then the golden age of Hollywood would cease to exist. The nasty world outside Hollywood which Cliff exists in would bridge the gap of Rick and reach Sharon... So QT creates the scenario where it stops at Cliff and Rick - and perhaps a world of golden age Hollywood continues now...?
In my mind I place the end of optimistic America with the shooting of JFK. The end of golden Hollywood was the Tate murder by the Manson acolytes.
QT gives us a glimpse of what life might be without that sea-change. And he delivers it as the master film-maker he is.
9.25/10
Rewatch (4th, maybe 5th) - Oct 2020
What a film... A directorial masterpiece and a hell of a tale.
It oozes quality and substance in every shot with a wonderfully flowing narrative.
When you want to celebrate cinema, this is the kind of film you go to. It's not a perfect film but it is almost... And the level that Tarantino is operating at is quite phenomenal.
On that... I often wonder how a director keeps that muscle toned. Like a boxer needing rounds - or a musician can write songs and play often - but a director has one project every 2 or 3 years at most. So how do you come to set and have ideas for great shots without first having to get the ring-rust off you... Just a thought.
There are two negatives I must mention. The first is a big one, and involves the wonderfully atmospheric trip to the old Bounty Law sets. The scene with Bruce Dern falls flat after such a great build up. (I heard Dern interviewed and he said he improvised his lines and Pitt had to work with them. This is likely the reason why...) The rest of that act is fantastic though.
The second negative is the reception of the film. I've not scene an actor cover as much ground as DiCaprio does in this since DiCaprio in Wolf of Wall Street. The guy has grown into the best actor of his generation and he's showing all of his powers here. To play a guy struggling with the scene and then play the guy nailing the scene... What a a talent. And it pains me that he was largely overlooked for this come awards season.
Brad Pitt. The character of Cliff Booth is the coolest guy since The Dude. And it's such a great twist to see how a cool alpha would deal with the situation that took place on Cielo Drive. I read that McQueen should have been there that night and I wonder what a "man's man" would have done... Well now we don't have to wonder. A sober Booth would have dispatched them no problem (with vicious assistance from Brandy) and a trippy Booth does pretty damn well.
I'd pay good money to see a 4hr version of this with extra scenes and exploration. It's so well shot, full of class and such a riveting event that I hope it gets the Extended Netflix treatment.
If this is 9 of 10 for Mr Tarantino then I hope his swansong is as great as this, Jackie Brown, Pulp Fiction, Hateful Eight or Django... He's a wizard.
9.25/10
(that rare beast that improves with each watch)
After thoughts:
Bruce Lee. I'm a huge fan and it pains me to see this scene. But the reality of physical combat means its not a million miles from being wrong. Best of 3 would go something like that. And it's interesting that the 3rd point is unresolved. Bruce is struggling but he's still in it. Who knows who would have won...
Francesca, la sposa Italiana... I can't see the marriage lasting a triple homicide within it's first 24 hours on American Soil! Though she may like flamethrowers... Hahaha!
What a film.
This was one of the first contacts I had with a Quentin Tarantino film. I always heard that he liked to use violence a lot in his films. When I knew the time when the film was going to happen and the historical context that would revolve around the film, I was very curious on how he would approach such a case. To be honest, the film is quite slow and I was not able to get so attached to the characters (Except the dog Brandy <3). What interested me most was the end of the film. He surprised me positively for knowing how to use violence in a very intelligent way that made me vibrate and feel pleasant at the same time. It is strange for an extremely violent scene to make the viewer feel so good about it. Who doesn't know actress Sharon Tate and her story, do some research before seeing the movie. It will help a little to understand the ending and the homage behind some scenes.
Fun watch but not much reason to watch again...git to the back of the bus with Planet Terror
You have to wait until 2h26m to finally see the actual Tarantino style. And it last for 6-7m.
Tarantino crafted something completely different from his previous movies, and it it is quintessentially his movie. He's able to craft an entirely new world around people that have lived, creating new characters that trickle in beautifully along the movie whom you get to know intensely along the ride. One of Pitt's and DiCaprio's strongest performances.
Wow .. that movie was one hell of a ride. A ride i wish i could have jumped back on shortly after, to ride it on through the finish line again.
First acts are a group wank for people with hardons for Hollywood and another for the sixties and climax to feet in Hollywood in the sixties.
Last act and finale is a very heavy handed transition to alt history vengeance porn on the Manson family murderers for what they did to Hollywood actors that feels like a template after Inglorious Basterds.
It has some moments but in all it's like a costume drama by and for the Oscars.
Ma note exact est de 67/100
I liked it ! And when my friend explained me from what the movie is inspired, it made it even better.
Don't think i've ever disliked a Tarantino, ever. The balance of action, story, comedy, seriousness, and nostalgia is always entertaining. Although the story was interesting, it was definitely weaker than other Tarantinos. The second half of the movie was beautifully set up for that phenomenal ending. The first half was good but slightly prolonged. It's worth it, though, as always, Tarantinos' spin on historic events is always satisfying. The acting, dialogue, and cinematography are a hit, from the title sequence to the credits.
Review by schmenkyBlockedParentSpoilers2019-08-14T22:23:38Z
I hope I can watch this again someday, and enjoy it in a different way. But as far as seeing it in the theater goes, it was a mildly enjoyable journey that turned in to an annoying slog, which ultimately culminated in disappointment.
What the fuck Tarantino? No mystery, no comedy, no trademark dialogue, NO STORY! This movie relies on presupposed knowledge too much. I go into movies that I want to see without reading anything about them or watching any trailers. So if the movie takes until the final act to reveal what the mystery even is, and then subverts it within 10 minutes in a ridiculously, unnecessarily violent way, it doesn't make for an enjoyable movie. It was two hours of a red herring (if you know what it's about already), and then a half hour of "Is this movie seriously going to end without tying together any of these useless, boring storylines?"
First act: Tarantino's use of different film stocks, and his decision to start the movie by showing his version of a corny Oldwest show got me very excited for what was to come. During the first act however, he went back to this a bunch of times, and each time it was a little less enjoyable when it only started out as mildly humorous in the first place. the character development, and relationship between Pitt and DiCaprio was fun to watch. Other character development was pretty flat, and the Bruce Lee scene was just dumb. Pretty early in the movie I started to dislike Pitt's character. this obviously would detract me from enjoying him as the pseudo-hero later.
Second act: The Sharon Tate storyline was really starting to get to me. It's been years since I read about the Manson murders, so when I heard her name, I was thinking "that sounds familiar, I think there was something called the Sharon Tate murders. Maybe Brad Pitt is supposed to end up killing her or something." The more they were following Sharon Tate in her daily activities, the more I was thinking that she better be an important part of this movie or else I wasted about 45 minutes watching something that doesn't even matter.
The scene where Brad Pitt goes to the hippie hideout is easily the best in the movie. Even though at that point I didn't realize this was supposed to be a Manson thing, it was still a very intense scene. Had I known that this was a twist on the Manson family, it would have been a little more entertaining. So maybe Tarantino could have done SOMETHING to tell us this instead of just assuming that everyone is gonna watch every trailer and think that every hippie congregation is supposed to be the Manson family. This was the first time I was taken out the movie by the over-the-top violence inflicted on a character while everyone around me was laughing at it. And if you're supposed to think it's funny even if you don't know that they're supposed to be a murderous cult, then I don't know what the fuck is wrong with people.
Final act: I'm sitting in my seat, and all I can think is "this better be one hell of a third act to bring all these boring, useless storylines together." DiCaprio gets drunk and yells at some hippies. Pretty funny. Pitt takes his dog for a walk, and starts tripping on acid. Kinda funny. then for the first time in two hours, these hippie characters (that you're wondering why are even in the movie to begin with) FINALLY say something that shows they have a murderous leader. Then I start getting excited, finally connecting the dots, and thinking oh man this is gonna be a cool take on the Manson murders. And within five minutes I am not only disappointed by the climax, I am incredibly disappointed in my overall experience with the movie.
The hippie characters only deserved what they got in our real universe where they did the actions that they're know for. But in the movie universe, they were not responsible for these actions, and so their punishment was out of the blue and unwarranted. And if you don't know the real life story of these characters, I would expect that you would be disgusted by what happens, and how everybody is laughing around you in the theater. it was jarring in a way that other Tarantino violent scenes are not. he has made some of the most intensely violent scenes, but they are done for drama, for realism, or to get you disgusted with a character. This violence was done for humor, and I felt very out of place in the theater being the only one who was questioning why people are laughing at a dog ripping a guys genitals off, and then a girls face off while they're both screaming in horror. or apparently everybody's favorite was when the girl's face got smashed over and over into a coffee table until there was nothing left of it. everyone laughed the hardest at that part.
Either I missed something absolutely huge that changed my perception of this movie, or Tarantino has made a huge shift in his writing style, and the audience has made a huge shift in what is funny. Two movies ago Tarantino had a guy getting ripped apart by dogs, and it is one of the hardest scenes for anyone I know to get through, now it's funny because they committed murder in a different reality? I don't get it, I don't get the movie, and fuck you Tarantino for giving us two hours of nothing so you can give us 5 minutes of violence. I enjoyed the first time you did that in Death Proof, when it was actually entertaining. It's a real shame to add this movie to his near flawless career.
2 / 2 directing & technical aspect
0 / 1 story
.5 / 1 act I
1 / 1 act II
.5 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
1 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
-.5 / 1 misc (wtf?)
6.5 / 10