Once Upon a Time in Hollywood *spoilers from post 356*

Wombatman

Disappointing. Lots of style, little substance. 6.5/10

The Good:
Some of the acting was outstanding, DiCaprio in particular as magic. The stuff he can do it his facial expressions alone is mind boggling. The wee girl and the horse riding from Tex were other examples of performers at top end of the game. It goes without saying that Brad and the big screen are marriage made in heaven.

The dialog and set piece scenes were entertaining, typical of QT

The sets were marvelous in terms of scale, variety and attention to detail. The old neon signs and inner city driving we beautifully presented.

It truly was a love letter to LA and Hollywood, possibly the central character in the film.

It was genuinely funny in places, but probably not as funny as it set out to be.

Soundtrack was pretty good.

The camera work and long takes were pretty ostentatious: car scenes, filming of horse riding and filming of Bounty Law scenes.

The Bad:
The screen play was incoherent junk.

Characters were total cliches you could't connect with or feel for, bar Tate. Charter development was sloppy as fook. Narrator coming and going, implausible dialog from McQueen, clunky flash backs. Did he kill his wife? Do I really care?

It was almost as if QT called up his actor friends and asked who would be available to make a movie about Hollywood in the late 60's. A part would be written for everyone, and their kids, around the main themes of the time, regardless if it worked or not.

Al Pacino and the whole Italy thing was pointless. Lena Dunham pointless. Steve McQueen pointless. Playboy mansion a pointless cliche. Go go dancers pointless cliche. I reckon when Timothy Olyphant read his part he wondered what is this trash.

The characters behavior at the very end summed up how bad it was. Oh, three people have just been brutally murdered in our house........ OK, you pop off back to bed hon and I'll head over for a wee drink and a chat with the neighbors.

Maybe it set out to mimic the screen writing quality of the type of TV show it featured. Maybe that part QT's brilliance just sailed over my head, but I'll leave that meta stuff to the film students.

artvanderlay

I loved it up until all the violence at the end: Tarantino really can't help himself. He needs a collaborator or a voice of reason that stops him giving into his more juvenile instincts like this. He could have ended it before the Manson family turned up, and it would have been a classic, but that ending probably lost half the audience. As a story, very little happened in it, but it was still one of the best nights I've had in a cinema in a long time. Even at nearly 3 hours long, I never checked the time once, and was fully engaged throughout. Margot Robbie had nothing to do, but I really enjoyed the Brad and Leo bromance (I don't rate either as great actors, but I like Brad's cool style and Leo is a trier). My fav moment in the movie was Leo's meltdown in his trailer, culminating in him threatening to shoot himself in the head if he doesn't up his game! I'm going to use that on myself when I need a kick up the arse :pac: 9/10

PsychoPete

Went to see this during the week, sounded like I'd love it but I just didn't take to it. Felt like 2 hours just waiting for something to happen. Found it incredibly boring. I'm sure there's something about this film I'm completely missing

Homelander

I had some reservations about the runtime but it really is an astounding film and in the end I could've easily sat through another 30 minutes of it with zero complaints. The performances from DiCaprio and Pitt are out of this world, really next-level career defining level stuff for both. Like with many Tarantino films, there's little sense in questioning the whys in relation to many aspects of it, just enjoy the supremely well-crafted ride while it lasts. Yeah, it could've been 30 minutes shorter, but it wouldn't be the film Tarantino set out to make.

Really great film. I can see why the ending would be divisive - and I'm someone who disliked Inglorious Basterds - but it worked perfectly for me to a tee. I'd genuinely have to give it a 10/10, wasn't left wanting in the slightest, nor left unengaged through every second of run-time.

Captain_Crash

Saw it on Sat night and have to be honest I considered walking out, I thought it was absolutely terrible. It had its funny moments yes but was such a let down overall.

Hector Savage

kerplun k wrote: »

I’m gonna spoiler this whole thing because I think the less you know about this, the more enjoyable it will be. Full spoilers as well

Hollywood is getting nostalgic about classic Hollywood.
With a plethora of these type of films in that last few years including Hail, Caesar!, La La Land, Café Society and now OUATIH, Hollywood seems to be getting quite found of kissing its own arse and reminiscing about classic Hollywood.

But this is Tarantino, so of course I’ll go see it. Is it Tarantinos best film? Probably not, but the bar is set high, so that doesn’t stop this from being one of the best films of the year.

It’s hard to tie this to any one genre, it’s a western, it’s a comedy, a drama, its meta, it’s a fictional biographical, a fantasy, a fairy tale.
There’s a lot going on here. The opening scene sets the tone with actor Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) and his stunt double/best friend Cliff Booth (Pitt), arguably two of Hollywood’s biggest leading men being interviewed on the set of Daltons western TV show, and right off the bat you get a sense of what type of film this is. Tarantino sets the scene like only he can, the nonchalant dry humour, the on-screen chemistry between DiCaprio and Pitt, the 1950s promotional cuts for Daltons TV show.

From there the film takes off, we get the classic Tarantino scene setting, the character interplay, beautiful shots of movie studios and cool cars driving through a neon lit 50/60s Hollywood, all over a perfectly selected soundtrack. All the neat stuff you’d expect from a Tarantino movie.

Most people probably know the story of the infamous Tate murders. I’ve seen a number of documentaries and content on the subject and I’ll admit that going into this I was expecting the film to tell Tarantinos version of that story, I was surprised at how much the film directs its attention away from Sharon Tate (Robbie), instead the film weaves her in and out of the story and we only see sprinkles of her and Polanskis life. Robbie is perfectly fine in the role, and excels in the one meaningful scene she has, and that’s just fine because DiCaprio and Pitt are on top form. DiCaprios shows many layers to Rick Dalton which I won’t go into but one scene in particular really blew me away. We’re watching a story within a story, DiCaprio, playing Dalton, playing another villainous character and is chewing out his lines and messes up on a tricky piece of dialogue, He switches back to Dalton and asks the prompter for the line, who then feds it back to him, he then switches back to the villainous character and finishes the scene. It’s all done flawlessly. DiCaprios chemistry with a young snobby child actress (Julia Butters) is also another stand out, the scenes they share together are all too brief and are real highlights.

Then we have Brad Pitt, his character Cliff Booth is fascinating. This is how you direct Brad Pitt in a movie. He’s just so f**king cool. I had to keep reminding myself that Pitt is 55. He plays a stuntman, but encapsulates what a movie star is supposed to be, he kills every scene he’s in just by being there, and there’s a great bit of mystery surrounding him regarding his wife which I’m glad was left open.

And then the ending…. Talk about subverting ones expectations.
Having some knowledge of the Tate murders, I was fully expecting the plot to play out as it did in real life and during the climactic scene it took me a while to register what was actually happening. I think it was at the point DiCaprio pulled out his flamethrower and toasts the remaining Manson member that I realised something was up.

We have the usual movie aftermath of such a scene, the ambulance and police show up, take statements, good guy gets taken away in ambulance, and two main leads have a friendly goodbye, but then we have the real ending. In the aftermath of the events, Rick Dalton haphazardly chats with neighbour Sharon Tate about the nights events, she invites him in, and we see them all greeting each other, Tates alive, Rick Dalton may get that career boast he needs, it’s a happy ending. The camera zooms out and the film ends rather oddly, like as if it’s just the beginning of a TV show or movie.

The title displays. Once Upon a Time In... Hollywood. Then something clicks in my head, I’ve just watched a fairy tale.

One big criticism I do have about the film is that we’ve seen this trick before from Tarantino, while maybe not a fairy tale, Inglourious Basterds pulled a similar stunt that does dilute the impact of this film. Having just watched Darren Aronofsky Black Swan again the other night, I remember I had the same criticism in that he’s done this before with The Wrestler, (performance artist sacrifices body for their art). And Like I said at the start,

it’s probably not Tarantinos best film and the movie as whole is probably not as good as the sum of its parts, but like all of Tarantinos films, it’s worth your attention, more importantly, it’s worth your undivided attention and a trip to the cinema.

Great post

Hector Savage

Gardiner 2001 wrote: »

Saw this yesterday in Charleston. Really enjoyed it not overly blown away by end of it tho. Want to say thanks to the 2 women in front of me who had their mobiles on for half of the film, if Tarantino had of been directing that scene of you two on your mobiles it might of ended up badly for you. Seriously tho leave the feckin film people if your not into it or any other film and realise people have come to watch the film and not being distracted by stupid mobiles.

unforgivable ...

Goodshape

Very good. Probably the best Tarantino since Jackie Brown.

Took maybe 20 minutes to acclimatise and relax into the world, and after that it was smooth sailing all the way. Very enjoyable.

IrishAlice wrote: »

I had guessed the ending early on but enjoyed it none the less.

Same. Didn't bother me much but a couple of different people who'd seen the film commented on the "shocking" and "very Tarantino" final 10 minutes. Wasn't difficult to guess what that meant, given the set-up.

Pro-tip:: when giving a brief synopsis of film, don't tell people there's a twist or a shock or something unexpected. It ceases to be shocking or unexpected when you're anticipating it.

I think I could have done without the ending to be honest; although having said that – it all seemed to flow together well enough. No complaints.

bennyl10

Saw this last night, absolutely adored it, every single bit.

I can see why some may not enjoy it, herself being one of them, but i found it fantastic.

Pitt and DiCaprio were outstanding throughout, and Robbie really did Tate wonderfully (the cinema scene especially was well done).

Genuinely have this up there in my head as one of Tarantino's best, world building, soundtrack cinematography.
and then the ending..

(also thoughy the dialogue nods to hamlet and Shakespeare in the 'film within a film' was a nice hat-tip)

Beechwoodspark

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Saw it on Sat night and have to be honest I considered walking out, I thought it was absolutely terrible. It had its funny moments yes but was such a let down overall.

It’s so far from a classic I agree. Bit of a mess

Beechwoodspark

PsychoPete wrote: »

Went to see this during the week, sounded like I'd love it but I just didn't take to it. Felt like 2 hours just waiting for something to happen. Found it incredibly boring. I'm sure there's something about this film I'm completely missing

I was listening to mark kermodes podcast

He says QT was warned by lots of ppl the movie was too long and too boring in parts

QT was apparently angry that ppl criticized it and doubled down on the length

To me huge amounts of it could have been cut out. Won’t spoiler anything but come on, the whole extended ranch scene? Needed to be cut drastically.

Goodshape

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

To me huge amounts of it could have been cut out. Won’t spoiler anything but come on, the whole extended ranch scene? Needed to be cut drastically.

To each their own but, honestly, I'm not even sure which ranch scene you're thinking of cutting.

Making it 20 or 30 minute shorter... to get to where? Not to say it was perfect or anything, but the film was just a nice place to be. It was never really moving towards anything which we could have or should have gotten to quicker.

Blanchy90

Absolutely terrible film nothing happens for most of the film. There was some funny parts but not enough to make the film tolerable.

I've never been so close to walking out of a cinema due to sheer boredom.

Beechwoodspark

Blanchy90 wrote: »

Absolutely terrible film nothing happens for most of the film. There was some funny parts but not enough to make the film tolerable.

I've never been so close to walking out of a cinema due to sheer boredom.

3 ppl walked out after approx an hour in my viewing. One of them said something not very nice (her opinion on the movie I am guessing) as she was leaving

Beechwoodspark

Goodshape wrote: »

To each their own but, honestly, I'm not even sure which ranch scene you're thinking of cutting.

Making it 20 or 30 minute shorter... to get to where? Not to say it was perfect or anything, but the film was just a nice place to be. It was never really moving towards anything which we could have or should have gotten to quicker.

Not interested in a to and fro with anyone over this but out of courtesy to explain:-

By the extended ranch scene I mean the scenes where B Pitt was at the ranch.

And the reason why editing is SO important in a movie - pacing. It adds so much to the overall experience.

Homelander

You seem to be forgetting that it's entirely subjective, not objective. I thought the ranch scene was brilliant and not in need of any alterations to my mind, nor is anything in the movie for that matter. Editing is important but different film-makers offer different experiences and this was classic Tarantino as far as I can see, it's not as if he reinvented himself for this production and thus I can't see how anyone who's seen his previous movies (especially the last few) would be surprised as far as pacing and structure are concerned.

Goodshape

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Not interested in a to and fro with anyone over this but out of courtesy to explain:-

By the extended ranch scene I mean the scenes where B Pitt was at the ranch.

And the reason why editing is SO important in a movie - pacing. It adds so much to the overall experience.

Yeah, all good. Not arguing with you at all – was just curious.

I really enjoyed that whole scene.

El Duda

As much as I enjoyed parts of this, I just can't get over the fact that about 40 minutes of the film is just people driving around in cars.

bennyl10

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah, all good. Not arguing with you at all – was just curious.

I really enjoyed that whole scene.

As did I, thought it was a really well down scene and sets up a lot that comes!

Although I enjoyed the movie as a whole, which helps

TinCool

Saw this on Saturday afternoon with my brother. Some great things about it.
1. Pitt and DiCaprio gerat as usual
2. Liked the cameos from the likes of KR and LP. Nice to see Pacino not shouting for once.
3. Soundtrack was decent enough.
4. The actual sound stuff (i.e. foley stuff), like the sound of people taking drags off their cigaretters, or dogs barking in the background (reminded me of Pulp Fiction) was great
5. Cinematography and actual locations/sets were extremely well done.


But, unfortunately for me, the actual movie had zero in the line of actual plot. A whole load of talking but nothing happening, until towards the end

with the nod to Manson/Tate

. I get it's a day in the life of, but nothing really grabbed me. A bit of a disappointment for me, but will most likely watch it again on DVD to pick up on bits I probably missed. I still think QT peaked with Pulp Fiction and it will neve be bettered.

Beechwoodspark

TinCool wrote: »

Saw this on Saturday afternoon with my brother. Some great things about it.
1. Pitt and DiCaprio gerat as usual
2. Liked the cameos from the likes of KR and LP. Nice to see Pacino not shouting for once.
3. Soundtrack was decent enough.
4. The actual sound stuff (i.e. foley stuff), like the sound of people taking drags off their cigaretters, or dogs barking in the background (reminded me of Pulp Fiction) was great
5. Cinematography and actual locations/sets were extremely well done.


But, unfortunately for me, the actual movie had zero in the line of actual plot. A whole load of talking but nothing happening, until towards the end

with the nod to Manson/Tate

. I get it's a day in the life of, but nothing really grabbed me. A bit of a disappointment for me, but will most likely watch it again on DVD to pick up on bits I probably missed. I still think QT peaked with Pulp Fiction and it will neve be bettered.

The frustrating thing for me is that LA in 1969 had so much going on to weave into the story. Such rich material.

Apparently QT rewrote the script a number of times. Earlier version had Cliff and Rick as private investigators into the murders. Now THAT set up has huge potential.

Earthhorse

Not a Tarantino fan but this is his best since Jackie Brown.

Great performances and cinematography but overall, too long, I think, and a triumph of style over substance.

garra

pixelburp wrote: »

Yowsers.

Yeah, I can see why some folk have been a little leery about Tarantino touching this story. He's not always the most nuanced when it comes to violence.

Having seen the film all I can do is LOL at this comment, thanks for the chuckles! :pac:

El Duda

kerplun k wrote: »

...it’s worth your undivided attention and a trip to the cinema.

Great review!

GLaDOS

I'm on the underwhelmed side of the fence on this I'm afraid.

There's some great acting, some great cinematography, some great individual scenes; but I found myself waiting for something to happen. Overall the lack of a plot made this a disappointment for me. Perhaps some of it went over my head, I'm no movie buff, I can certainly see why people did enjoy it.

Funnily enough I really enjoy the ranch scene which seems to be attracting criticism. There was a tension behind it which made it very gripping for me.

Earthhorse

I thought that was a great scene too. The whole thing from Cliff picking her up to him driving off just before Tex arrives.

But there were other scenes I felt didn't work; like Tate watching The Wrecking Crew. I understand why it was there but it was not enjoyable in and of itself (it was quite watchable though).

Wombatman

Ranch scene one of the better ones for me. Made Cliff a little less cardboard cut out. Some good shots of Cliff running the gauntlet so to speak. Fun dialog between Cliff with Fanning and Dern. Impressive horsemanship too from young Butler.

Burt Reynolds was cast in Dern's role initially

Another thing that pissed me off was how Rick and Cliffs buddy break-up was portrayed. Would have expected it to be central to the story line whereas it came across as a rushed afterthought.

speedboatchase

I loved the ranch scene. Felt it was dripping with menace. Probably the highlight of the film for me, bar the ending.

Beechwoodspark

Wow some really harsh comments online over this movie

Certainly isn’t deserving of the trashing it is getting

And ppl saying only cuz it’s Tarantino is it getting praise. Not true.

El Duda

Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood – 7/10

I found the opening 40 minutes or so extremely hard to engage with. I don’t have any affection for the Hollywood era it is depicting so a lot of it just went straight over my head. A glaring omission for me was the tension that usually comes with a typical Tarantino, dialogue heavy set pieces.

The film kicked into life with the controversial Bruce Lee scene. After that, the comedy started to flow and tension began to slowly drip its way into certain scenes. Culminating in the superb ranch scene which was the clear highlight for me. Tarantino has spoken of wanting to make a horror film one day, and this shows he has the ability in his locker.
As much as I appreciated what Leo did here, Brad Pitt completely stole the show for me. All those wasted years casting him as a ‘movie star’ in paint-by-numbers Blockbuster guff such as World War Z or Troy, when he could’ve been building his repertoire as one of America’s top character actors.

I think part of the problem with this film is that we have certain expectations when it comes to “A new Tarantino film” and when an auteur director like him goes off-pistse to such an extent, it catches people off guard. I did not expect 40 minutes of this films run time to just be people driving around. I was constantly wondering where this was going, and I feel that with a second viewing I’d be able to sit back and appreciate the ride a bit more.

The less said about the ending the better. I knew I was in for a Tarantino revisionist history lesson, but I wasn’t expecting that. It was extremely satisfying and cathartic. A huge ‘**** you’ to Manson and his cultists for overshadowing a much beloved period of cinema history.

Early critics reviews that compared this to Pulp Fiction were way wide of the mark, so if you go in expecting that I can understand the disappointment. I would’ve sold it as a glacially paced, unfocused love-letter to Hollywood in the late sixties that is only comparable to the directors’ previous work in small, scattered doses.