He'll be back next week he'll talk about it when it comes up in the top 10. I suggest you listen to the actual radio broadcast next week as opposed to the yt upload if you want to hear his thoughts
I didn't know what to think of it. I expected so much more. Nothing really happens throughout the entire film. Suspense is built, only to be deflated every time. Plot lines are established, only to go nowhere. The film is mostly people driving in cars listening to music. Not once was I bored by the film and I was fairly entertained throughout, but I left the screen feeling that it could have been so much more. Don't get me wrong, I love films in which nothing happens. Give me a 3 hour film about nothing in particular, with a good script and interesting characters and I am a happy man. Yet this just lacked something.
@@TheSamthaman24 I saw the film myself tonight and I think I felt more forfilled by it then most as I knew what to expect, but I can understand why peope feel this way or worse about it. Agreed it will need a 2nd watch
I'm kind of baffled about how well received this is, all the scenes are well done but pretty much right from the start you see scenes which could've easily been cut or trimmed down substantially without losing anything (including probably 80% of the TV scenes), the violence is somehow even more juvenile than in his previous films which is saying something and the Sharon Tate stuff doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than him just thinking "yeah, this is gonna be so cool I'm gonna put that in the movie" and nobody having the balls to question him on it (which just seems like the story of his career after Jackie Brown). It's entertaining enough and Pitt and DiCaprio are both incredible but it seems so obviously flawed
That makes no sense. Maybe he doesn't have appreciation for it becasue like me he thought it had problems. Film is subjective and there is no right or wrong, there is only opinion.
Gastroman Mark has sour grapes for QT. Notice Mark will give positive reviews for those who allow themselves to be interviewed by him. QT doesn’t come on the show. Kermodes criticism of QT is ridiculous and founded in unbelievably high bars to meet.
Whether you liked a movie is very subjective but the qualities of a movie can be discussed very objectively. Tarantino's movies are never without flaws. I'm with Mark here.
The forced hipster fashion sense aside, I rather like Robbie now. He's a darn sight more articulate and thoughtful than most of the amateur review channels on you tube, that's for certain! God, I miss the days when people had to have talent to get on the tv!
@@benjaminrooker5793 It's the journalistic training that makes the difference. Being able to write well obviously helps when it comes to articulating your thoughts 'out loud'. Mark writes for a living, so does Robbie and you can tell. At the same time, good luck to you if your shouty, sweary and gimicky you tube film channel makes you any sort of a living! It beats working for it!
@@stephenwalker850 In execution, most certainly. Making a living from filming badly written reviews of films means nothing, that's my point. I prefer to listen to somone with some writing ability. If you have a channel, but clearly have trouble expressing your thoughts, then that to me is amateur. I take it you have such a channel and are offended by my comments?
As a young Tarantino fan, I’ve never heard of the Manson murders. I felt nothing in any scene except the finale. Now I’ve done some research and have a whole new portrait of the movie. Gonna watch it again and maybe get another feel.
iConnell you will definitely watch it differently. From the get go I was just getting myself prepared for the murders. Almost like a ticking time bomb....
Absolute same mate. I felt that mostly everything was meaningless, overall liked it, but didn't think it was great. Got home, looked it up (had NO idea that was the Manson Family or that Manson himself had made an appearance) and gave it a whole new context. Actually can't wait to see it again.
@Steve Blundell Totally. I went to see it again a couple of weeks ago and it flew by. Up there with his best, imo. Utterly fantastic film. Heartbreaking as well, really knowing what I do now.
watched it the second time last week knowing about the manson family. It had much more tension, even though I knew what was going to happen. I felt it was much more realistic than any other movie(except the ending of course), the actors acted and talked like actual ordinary human beings. I left the theatre satisfied and the urge to explore his world more, to live in the early 70s Hollywood and see what Rick, Cliff and Sharon are up to.
Do not understand all the comments here criticising Robbie and complaining about why Mark hasn't reviewed the film, always preferred Robbie's reviews, so much more analysis here and doesn't waste half the review explaining the plot, keep em coming Robbie!
I think this is Tarantino's best. Near perfection & edited so it drives the story well. It leads you to the conclusion (of the movie - of the era) And (mark of a good film!) it's almost more enjoyable the 2nd time you see it over the first! (Perfect music selection as well) Congrats!
His best? Wow. It's the only film of his I wish I hadn't bothered with. It was mediocre (for Tarantino) and then the ending was abysmal, verging on insulting.
Didn't make much of an impression on me, Tarantino's diminished focus after Sally Menke's passing is now quite evident, and that's not a bad thing, merely a reflection on what was a 1 in a million creative partnership. There's still gold to be mined but most of the allegories and observations are fairly heavy handed and obvious. The brazen amount of foot fetishism had reached an hysterically funny level, so that was an amusing distraction. It's interesting, but it's no Short Cuts, a solid 7 out of 10. It's good that on some kind of level this idea that Quentin says he's good for 10, I think he's intrinsically aware of coming to the end of his creative voice in film, and that's a healthy thing to admit.
I agree. It's impossible not to compare to his past movies, where you could feel he was at least somewhat reigned in by Sally Menke and now he has a yes man in his new editor who is just a Tarantino obsessor. You kind of feel Tarantino lost a bit if just lovemaking for movies after she passed... She was a bit of his genius we can see now. Still a great director, think H8, Once, and part of Django just lack that masterpiece perfection and he knows it deep down hence retiring. Performances have been carrying him since, instead of his writing. I still enjoyed Once though.
@@npe9483 I wish I felt this way. I'll give it another go, but it felt pointless, lacked any care or tension or anything. Was literally just like watching 2 dudes, do Hollywood things for 3 hours. Which could have been great, but was just good at times and boring/pointless at others.
You do realise Sharon Tate was a victim of Manson’s family in one of the most famous murder cases in the world? That’s what all this was about. Make google your friend.
The ending of this movie is brilliantly conceived. Tarantino knows that his audience is aware of exactly what happened to Sharon Tate. He takes that knowledge and subverts it in a way that is quite thoughtful. There is what happened, and there is what might have happened, or could have happened, or should have happened. I normally don't like graphically violent scenes in movies, such as American History X or Drive, but in this case, yes the violence is OTT, but it is also quite cartoonish.
@@earnthis1 "They" may very well have said it, but I never thought it until I saw this film. And I am the only barometer that counts. Welcome to ME, world!
Not sure if Robbie meant the climactic sequence itself was “deeply moving”. Definitely the scene following it but the climactic sequence itself was rather satisfying as much as it was shocking.
I assume he meant the shots of them talking after the bloodbath. I found it very moving, one shot from above almost made them look slightly faded like ghosts and the voices distant. I found that very moving in light of what actually happened.
@@simonetta53logan the title card makes the film seem like a movie from the 60s and further emphasises the fantasy of what you're watching as well as the Once upon a time in Hollywood title suggesting a fairytale
@@yeetboi9817 I got the impression that this film was made to make people who weren't alive during this era feel horribly envious. Tarintinos best movie.
When the girl had her faced smashed on every available hard surface? Deeply moving? Or that other one freaking out in a never ending spasm of final death throes? I actually thought that was deeply amusing,I'm chuckling now thinking about it.
Some of you are exhausting. I love Mark, but is what he says about this Tarantino going to differ from what he says about the majority of his others? No, probably not.
To add to the meta-ness of this film is the fact that it's partly about the end of old Hollywood and the beginning of new Hollywood and it's release in the present day where that New Hollywood is ending and a new era is beginning (I mean, Scorcese's releasing movies on Netflix for God's sake) and we have no idea where it's going, good or bad, or a mixture of both, is very interesting
Supposedly the original cut of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was 4 hours long, and I would have gladly sat there for the original cut and loved every minute of it. I loved escaping into the 1969 world that Tarantino created.
Contrary to others, I'm glad Robbie reviewed it. Mark completely misunderstands Tarantino's movies ever since his Kill Bill rant on Newsnight review and his subsequent outburst during his Death Proof review on how Tarantino "cannot direct" and "cannot write" and all his movies are juvenile (with the exception of Jackie Brown). Sure, he's calmed down a bit over the course of Tarantino's subsequent 3 movies and has even enjoyed elements of those, but I don't think he'll ever truly be happy until he makes another "Jackie Brown".
@@halloweenfriday He loves Jackie Brown, he just doesn't particularly like everything else (although he did initially like RD and PF but later seems to have changed his mind).
The fight between Bruce Lee and Cliff was to show that Cliff was a good fighter, it wasn't pointless. Tarantino says he buries exposition in all of this bullshit so it's not so noticeable.
Have seen it twice now, the first time on a superscreen and today on 35mm, mind blown on the latter. This is definitely the best of Quentin Tarantino's recent output and stands head and shoulders above all out there now. This is a film that can easily be watched multiple times, so layered and so much detail Tarantino is that guy that sat glued to the TV and there are so many references to shows that he devoured, some say that the Rick Dalton character was partly based on Pete Duel from Alias Smith and Jones, who battled with depression, alcoholism and eventually died of a self inflicted gunshot wound to his head. Rick Dalton in a soliloquy threatens to blow his brains out after messing up his lines due to consuming eight whiskey sours the night before. A rumour is that Gene LeBell did in fact manhandle Bruce Lee on the set of The Green Lantern, substitute Cliff Booth for Gene mixed in with a bit of Paul Newman and Hal Needham, who was Burt Reynolds stuntman and you have Brad Pitt's character. Acting in this film is off the charts, forget about Margot Robbie not having many lines what about Roman Polanski one of the most influential Directors ever, I think he had one sentence in the entire movie. Scenes and Dialogue have not been wasted in this film, would be interesting to know if Tarantino will release a Directors Cut with material that has been cut from this particular film. I for one would pay to see it at the Cinema The scene where Brad Pitt gets up on a roof to fix an aerial, hardly anything happens but rather like the entire film it is riveting. This film really is a love letter to the forgotten people from the film & television industries in the Sixties & Seventies and I cannot wait to see it again. Highly Recommended.
I think all his films are a love letter to other films. Especially Django being a love letter to western films. That being said I enjoyed hateful 8 far more. I didn’t feel like he knew what kind of movie he wanted to make he just wanted to make a film in the late 60s it has almost zero narrative and the vast majority of the scenes didn’t really have any purpose. That being said all the scenes were fantastic. The cinematography is great, the acting is great but for what purpose? What is it trying to say? I dont think anything. It felt like a collection of well written scenes strung together with a loose narrative to excuse ultra violence at the end. I wanna understand why it’s a masterpiece but I don’t get it.
@@richhartnell6233 I actually thought Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a love letter to all that I said previously but also to Sergio Leone and his Once Upon A Time in the West and other so called Spaghetti Westerns. They were a huge part of my childhood and sitting indoors glued to the TV that would have been quite a large part of his diet. The ultra violence in the end I do not get, I mean I hate it, it distracts from all the good work and acting beforehand. Your point about Tarantino not knowing what sort of film he wanted to make, could well be valid. But I do believe he wanted to make this film following the lead characters for a couple of days and intertwining his side stories into the larger script. I really liked it but I am the guy who loves slow dialogue heavy films as a general rule, which do not really go anywhere.
I thought it was brilliant... until the ending which I found somewhat jarring. The world of late 60s Hollywood that Tarantino carefully crafts really is mesmerising. It had a certain easy quality about it, it didn't feel artificial or phoney, even down to the banal radio adverts for products that are long gone and no one remembers. Though you could see how attitudes to things like car seat belts and smoking were very different to today, it had a kind of immediacy to it that made it feel real; like you really were peering into the past or maybe even living it. All of the performances were great, and I think any criticism that Margo Robbie doesn't have enough dialogue really comes from people that don't understand what the role of her character is and what Tarantino is doing. I thought this was his best work, it avoided some of the pitfalls of his more recent films, nothing felt laboured despite the slow pacing for much of the running time. Nothing felt out of place; the humour felt natural. The way he built tension was brilliant, the scene at the 'Manson Family' ranch had me on the edge of my seat, the menacing atmosphere it conjured. Everything felt in balance and superbly done... until the finale. I won't give it away, but it felt like Tarantino chickened out of confronting the terrible destination his film was headed. All of a sudden the careful reality that he had built gave way to a scene from an earlier version of the director and it left the careful, thoughtful film that I had just sat through adrift in a strange alternate universe. I think that Tarantino was on the cusp of making a truly outstanding film, but threw it away with a return to type that at the end that left me a little disappointed. It's still a brilliant piece of work but... that ending...
I think you might be committing the same mistake you're accusing the folks who disliked how Sharon Tate was used of making. You don't understand what Tarantino was doing. Yes it is jarring, but the ending is completely thematically appropriate and totally thrillingly entertaining! It gives the kind of exclamation point that the slow pace of the film really earns. The film was brilliant before it but wouldn't be so gd legendary without it. All my opinion, not fact.
I've watched it twice, and I agree with Robbies review. Loved it. When your movie has a number of scenes, where you're driving around listening to the radio - that QT said is how he remembers his childhood growing up in LA - and the movie is 160 minutes long, you're going to get some lulls, but the production and characters just made me sit back and relax and take it all in, and makes the third act even more powerful. QT does well to ramp up the tension in the Spahn ranch, especially when you consider the big bad Cliff Booth is up against a bunch of teenage flower children. I think if you know about the Manson Family and The Tate Murders, you will love it more. Loved it, loved it!
I go to Tarantino's movie theatre on New Beverly - used to be an old porno theatre - where he personally curates an incredible festival of nightly double features on 16 + 35mm print. Every single night. Obscure, unknown, as well as classic movies - and he invites the cast and crew to come and talk about the films during the intermission. You can hear Mr Tarantino himself, laughing from somewhere in the small dark auditorium. He held the premiere to 'Once Upon A Time ... In Hollywood' here - and in the movie, Catherine Tate, on the night of the attack, as they go to dinner at El Coyote on New Beverly mentions ".. is that a premiere at the porno theatre?" Love the little easter eggs in there ;)
Just saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it, after disliking most of his previous films. Amazing production design. Despite it lacking a clear narrative, I was never bored, despite its length. Great performances all around, but for me Margaret Qualley's performance stood and she managed to steal every scene she was in.
This film needed a massive trim. So many scenes were just overly indulgent and pointless. Not enough tension, not enough fun. Too much director indulgence. 2 hours in I was just waiting for it to end. Some good moments, but definitely not a Tarantino great.
Some brilliant performances but the film was pretty dull. I personally thought it was disrespectful to Sharon Tate given what really happened. I don't agree with this review but I think Robbie is great. He loves film knows his stuff. This film will divide people and make no sense to those who don't know what happened on that dreadful night
Angela D I agree with it being dull but in a way I’m glad they didn’t include her murder cause i feel like it would be romanticised in some way or another.
Masterpiece - the way it divides some viewers/critics is a testament to its core strength. The film is so elegant in the way it both weaves its way to outcome but by all its multilayered parallels. This is the Tarantino film that critics and viewers will return again and again in years to come.
If this was about cliff booth alone it would have been a worthwhile movie. Can't say i could ever watch that again without falling asleep. then again i would probably wake up and it would still be playing zzzzzzz.
@@npe9483 Haha I love a good slow burn but come on that tex and the other two did more walking than frodo and Sam ever did in lord of the rings to go up to the Dolton house.
@@npe9483 I can't say I enjoyed the film as a whole but there were great parts that wish were expanded on then there were reels of it I wish were cut. Like I said cliff booth was the most interesting character to me. If it was told from his perspective on everyone else and the fat cut .. that would have been a more attention grabbing movie.
I really disagree with Robbie here... I think the film was at best above average, definitely not a masterpiece at all! Ultimately I had a super fun time watching it but it was really long, pandering and self-indulgent in my opinion. Tarantino has not been good since his editor Sally Menke sadly passed away
Disappointing film IMO. It's spends way too much time indulging in re-created scenes of the main character's TV shows & movies and has nothing deep or interesting to say. The period details are spot on but I've never been fully convinced by the two lead's acting abilities. As per usual De Caprio grimaces & Pitt swaggers throughout but neither of them are as handsome or effortlessly charismatic as old school stars like Redford or Newman. The last reel is also full of typically grotesque & indulgent violence which showcases the juvenile side of a filmmaker who's never really grown up.
I know it sounds crazy, and I'm a fan of both, but I agree Leo and Pitt weren't enjoyable enough to lead the entire film and its topic. I think they're better in doses (Django, Big Short) but here it just felt like an uninteresting drag. Give me two lesser known actors or like a Tom Cruise and it'd have worked better. Tarantino looked like he didn't pull out their best this time around.
No, to actually impart all that takes acting chops, focus and courage, because you're laying your persona down for goofiness. We all knew the backstory going in so watching her passion was moving, because Tarantino knew we had the graphic and visceral tragedy imprinted.
I totally love this film,,,,, seen it 4 times at the flicks,,, would love to see it once a month,,, as you see so many different things each time. Good to see Jarvis cocker doing film reviews now!!!!
Matt Lacy it is really one of those marmite type movies that will split the audience. I have seen about 30 movies at the cinema this year with once Upon a time in Hollywood being at the top and the somewhat pedestrian pet sematary being at the bottom
Instant iconic scenes, amazing performances from literally everyone (including a little girl), a surprisingly melancholic mature tone (like Jackie brown), soundtrack that gets stuck in your head (like pulp fiction) best ending to any film ever made. It’s an amazing love-letter while deconstructing the myth of Hollywood life. It’s in my top 3 or 4 Tarantino films, but not top 2.
Just piling on so hopefully Mark shares his thoughts as well. No disrespect to Robbie Collin, he does great job but his name isn't in the channel name. I subscribed to hear Mark's reviews and he's got an entertaining history talking about Tarantino films
Of course, we must all know what Mark thinks of the film, in order for us to know what our own opinion of it is. ‘Mark LOVED it?! Then I think I love it’
the only comparison i could think of, weirdly enough, was with Bojack Horseman for anything even slightly similar (DiCaprio fighting with himself in the trailer, smoking and drinking a lot when he's on screen, trying to cope with being seen as a has-been and moving from project to project, listening to music/rehearsing for scenes in his giant pool) i really liked it, had only a passing knowledge of the Sharon Tate murder (embarrasingly it took them name-checking Polanski before the penny dropped, had vaguely heard or read bits throughout my life about their having been a tragic home invasion at his home) some of the more dramatic/serious parts that hit home surprisingly strongly, most of all when Leo completes a scene and the little girl says something nice to him, and some of the comic/absurd lines had me in stitches. One right at the end is one of my personal faves, paraphrasing but Leo going "Well the hippies f***in' ain't, that's for god damn sure" considering all that's gone on was a proper lol
I know this other guy from my childhood if I am right, he did a documentary for discovery Channel when he came to India... I remember him being funny..... Reminds me of days when TV was enjoyable
The film completely relies on the audience having knowledge of the Manson murders. If you don't have that knowledge the film doesn't work. Definitely not a masterpiece.
David James i don’t think the movie was supposed to be about Sharon Tate solely. I honestly still don’t know what it’s about. I have speculation but I like to see movies more than once before reviewing them. But i think the Sharon Tate / Manson family/ stuff was the hook for the bait. And the actual fill is more of an ensemble based around the events of late 60s Hollywood. The Sharon part included. But not the focal point
Leo deserves an Oscar! Tarantino wisely toned down the violence and did his usual brilliant usurping of film history. L.A. never looked better. No criticism save one thing. Sometimes he imposes his virtuosic cinematography style in moments that cannot support it. He creates with verisimilitude old TV acting, so why tart it up with show-offy modern cinematic styles never seen in early TV?
Absolutely loved it, brilliant Di Caprio performance and I usually cannot stand him. The biggest grin on leaving the cinema. Loved how uncompromising it is - you have to know so much for it to make any sense at all.
@@livefromthemotherland It's maybe his choices more than him & the people he plays - The Revenant was beyond bad, especially that final mug to the camera. I utterly, utterly hated Wolf of Wall Street & Inception. The only movie of his I liked prior to this was Blood Diamond
Dave Brickley did you see the aviator ? Probably my favorite by him. That’s just amazing acting. I didn’t see the revenant yet. Blood diamond was good but the accent threw me off. Inception was so complicated I’d have to watch it again to critique it. He was great in Django too. But I get you on the choices part. But when it comes to his ability I’d say he’s one of the best in the business
I was anxious to see Kermode’s review because he hates Tarantino. I didn’t like the movie as much as the critics did. It’s not on the top of my Tarantino’s movies
Why would he say oh no at 13:52 ? I was thinking oh yes. We get to see people get what they deserve. Seems a nice guy Robbie but reviewing violent movies doesnt suit him. Also he has a wardrobe made for radio, just a shame it now has cameras.
The movie plays better for us boomers, than even X-ers, let alone Millennials. Even before we hear the name Polanski in the film, when Tarrantino gave us the street-sign "Cielo Dr", many of us of that age knew where this was leading to. Hence, when the Family members get the wrong address and Tarantino twists history 180 degrees from where where we thought it was going to, yeah the theater audience reactions were sincere itmn just LOVING and cheering those human monsters getting ripped to shreds, pulverized, and flambed.
I think that maybe the last big film of 'old Hollywood' was "The Green Berets" in 1968. The plot was ultra patriotic & cringingly sentimental. Young soldiers on leave from the Vietnam war openly laughed & mocked it in cinemas. John Wayne revived his credibility the following year with "True Grit". Hollywood was more mature & cynical from that point on.
He does talk a lot... confirmed by the amount of 'very's used... thankfully he did manage to avoid giving too much away, though strayed a little close to the edge. I'd like to hear Mark Kermode's views... I loved it... was completely disorientated by it, but loved it all the same... Di Caprio & Pitt deserve oscars for their performances and of course Tarantino for his writing, directing, & producing
I guess the violence is done in a comical way but the end when Sharon introduces herself to rick was very moving. Not knowing (in the films universe) how close she has just come to death... what could have been :(
I could hardly get through the pseudo-intellectual claptrap at the beginning of this review. What everyone seems to have missed is the absolute delight the incidental 60s references occurring throughout the film (and during the credits) are for anyone who was around in the 60s. This was the Tarantino film I enjoyed the most, not least because it contained two of the most suspenseful sequences I can ever remember seeing in a film. It was only when the title came up at the end that I realised, with a feeling of great pleasure, its importance.
NPE 94 I think the op commenter is just saying this movie is getting so much attention because of the name behind it. Not that anyone else could make this type of film
Why does Robbie always end up reviewing the very film I want Mark to review....
He'll be back next week he'll talk about it when it comes up in the top 10. I suggest you listen to the actual radio broadcast next week as opposed to the yt upload if you want to hear his thoughts
@@morse8026 check marks twitter he already has given an opinion of it. Obvs not a full review but gives you taste of what he thinks of it.
Michael Myers He’ll basically just say it’s to long.
Robbie did a brilliant job with this
I love Kermode but Robbie is a better critic i think.
DiCaprio was bloody fantastic in this film. The more I think about his performance, the better it/he gets.
vinchenzo19 agreed, I think it was his best.
He's wearing a shirt over his shirt.
He's double shirting. Very in.
And it's an awful shift to boot.
Is this the thing now?
@@felix2672 More than likely. I myself wear four shirts, just the way I roll...
Ok now that we know Mark and Robbie have split opinion on this we need to see another debate like the Hereditary one
@@sketchyaf8487 Think he had mixed views about it
@@sketchyaf8487 Mark tweeted a few comments about the film. He said that he hatred the Bruce Lee scene; in this video, Robbie says he liked it.
Yep, my thoughts exactly. Cinematic Bloodsports... maybe.
Usually I’m Mark K all the way but, imho, he got this one wrong. I’m a QT fan and this is probably my favourite Tarantino film
I didn't know what to think of it. I expected so much more. Nothing really happens throughout the entire film. Suspense is built, only to be deflated every time. Plot lines are established, only to go nowhere. The film is mostly people driving in cars listening to music.
Not once was I bored by the film and I was fairly entertained throughout, but I left the screen feeling that it could have been so much more.
Don't get me wrong, I love films in which nothing happens. Give me a 3 hour film about nothing in particular, with a good script and interesting characters and I am a happy man. Yet this just lacked something.
I think a lot of that is because its from Tarantino, because it's not what we would expect from him.
tigermunky mate this was my exact feeling of he film. Going to see it again , y’all hopefully click it then
@@TheSamthaman24 I saw the film myself tonight and I think I felt more forfilled by it then most as I knew what to expect, but I can understand why peope feel this way or worse about it.
Agreed it will need a 2nd watch
Totally agree
I'm kind of baffled about how well received this is, all the scenes are well done but pretty much right from the start you see scenes which could've easily been cut or trimmed down substantially without losing anything (including probably 80% of the TV scenes), the violence is somehow even more juvenile than in his previous films which is saying something and the Sharon Tate stuff doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than him just thinking "yeah, this is gonna be so cool I'm gonna put that in the movie" and nobody having the balls to question him on it (which just seems like the story of his career after Jackie Brown). It's entertaining enough and Pitt and DiCaprio are both incredible but it seems so obviously flawed
So glad Robbie did review for this. Mark would never be so detailed or give such deep appreciation for Tarantino film.
That makes no sense. Maybe he doesn't have appreciation for it becasue like me he thought it had problems. Film is subjective and there is no right or wrong, there is only opinion.
@@Syklonus Yeah well I respect that but the thing is Mark's reviews are repetitive and shallow. Not what you'd expect from a serious critic.
Trouble is, Mark is always disappointed with Quentin, and hates anything to do with Manson.
Robbie nailed this. And it's not often I agree with him.
Gastroman Mark has sour grapes for QT. Notice Mark will give positive reviews for those who allow themselves to be interviewed by him. QT doesn’t come on the show. Kermodes criticism of QT is ridiculous and founded in unbelievably high bars to meet.
Whether you liked a movie is very subjective but the qualities of a movie can be discussed very objectively. Tarantino's movies are never without flaws. I'm with Mark here.
The forced hipster fashion sense aside, I rather like Robbie now. He's a darn sight more articulate and thoughtful than most of the amateur review channels on you tube, that's for certain! God, I miss the days when people had to have talent to get on the tv!
David Lean agreed, 99% of youtube reviewers are rubbish. Redletter media, Lindsey Ellis & Oliver Harper are very good IMO.
you sound exactly like my mother
@@benjaminrooker5793 It's the journalistic training that makes the difference. Being able to write well obviously helps when it comes to articulating your thoughts 'out loud'. Mark writes for a living, so does Robbie and you can tell. At the same time, good luck to you if your shouty, sweary and gimicky you tube film channel makes you any sort of a living! It beats working for it!
@@stephenwalker850 In execution, most certainly. Making a living from filming badly written reviews of films means nothing, that's my point. I prefer to listen to somone with some writing ability. If you have a channel, but clearly have trouble expressing your thoughts, then that to me is amateur. I take it you have such a channel and are offended by my comments?
As a young Tarantino fan, I’ve never heard of the Manson murders. I felt nothing in any scene except the finale. Now I’ve done some research and have a whole new portrait of the movie. Gonna watch it again and maybe get another feel.
iConnell the film hinges on knowing about the Sharon Tate murder I think
iConnell you will definitely watch it differently. From the get go I was just getting myself prepared for the murders. Almost like a ticking time bomb....
Absolute same mate. I felt that mostly everything was meaningless, overall liked it, but didn't think it was great. Got home, looked it up (had NO idea that was the Manson Family or that Manson himself had made an appearance) and gave it a whole new context. Actually can't wait to see it again.
@Steve Blundell Totally. I went to see it again a couple of weeks ago and it flew by. Up there with his best, imo. Utterly fantastic film. Heartbreaking as well, really knowing what I do now.
watched it the second time last week knowing about the manson family. It had much more tension, even though I knew what was going to happen. I felt it was much more realistic than any other movie(except the ending of course), the actors acted and talked like actual ordinary human beings. I left the theatre satisfied and the urge to explore his world more, to live in the early 70s Hollywood and see what Rick, Cliff and Sharon are up to.
Do not understand all the comments here criticising Robbie and complaining about why Mark hasn't reviewed the film, always preferred Robbie's reviews, so much more analysis here and doesn't waste half the review explaining the plot, keep em coming Robbie!
I think this is Tarantino's best. Near perfection & edited so it drives the story well. It leads you to the conclusion (of the movie - of the era) And (mark of a good film!) it's almost more enjoyable the 2nd time you see it over the first! (Perfect music selection as well) Congrats!
His best? Wow. It's the only film of his I wish I hadn't bothered with. It was mediocre (for Tarantino) and then the ending was abysmal, verging on insulting.
Didn't make much of an impression on me, Tarantino's diminished focus after Sally Menke's passing is now quite evident, and that's not a bad thing, merely a reflection on what was a 1 in a million creative partnership. There's still gold to be mined but most of the allegories and observations are fairly heavy handed and obvious. The brazen amount of foot fetishism had reached an hysterically funny level, so that was an amusing distraction.
It's interesting, but it's no Short Cuts, a solid 7 out of 10.
It's good that on some kind of level this idea that Quentin says he's good for 10, I think he's intrinsically aware of coming to the end of his creative voice in film, and that's a healthy thing to admit.
I agree. It's impossible not to compare to his past movies, where you could feel he was at least somewhat reigned in by Sally Menke and now he has a yes man in his new editor who is just a Tarantino obsessor. You kind of feel Tarantino lost a bit if just lovemaking for movies after she passed... She was a bit of his genius we can see now. Still a great director, think H8, Once, and part of Django just lack that masterpiece perfection and he knows it deep down hence retiring. Performances have been carrying him since, instead of his writing. I still enjoyed Once though.
@@npe9483 I wish I felt this way. I'll give it another go, but it felt pointless, lacked any care or tension or anything. Was literally just like watching 2 dudes, do Hollywood things for 3 hours. Which could have been great, but was just good at times and boring/pointless at others.
Sharon Tate's films 'are not great films'.
Actually 'Fearless Vampire Killers' is a cracking movie.
It's called 'Dance Of The Vampires' in the UK. Very funny movie.
You do realise Sharon Tate was a victim of Manson’s family in one of the most famous murder cases in the world? That’s what all this was about. Make google your friend.
@@jejmoss11 you total muppet haha
The ending of this movie is brilliantly conceived. Tarantino knows that his audience is aware of exactly what happened to Sharon Tate. He takes that knowledge and subverts it in a way that is quite thoughtful. There is what happened, and there is what might have happened, or could have happened, or should have happened. I normally don't like graphically violent scenes in movies, such as American History X or Drive, but in this case, yes the violence is OTT, but it is also quite cartoonish.
Love Robbie, I think he's a very knowledgeable reviewer. My favourite apart from Mark. PS: I loved the film.
Pamela Atkinson I agree. Everything he had to say about the film and Sharon Tate’s career was spot on!
after the bs he put joaquin phoenix through about the Joker, hell no. He sucks.
@callmecatalyst well it was a bad interview straight up
As soon as I saw Pitt and he started talking, I thought Robert Redford.
they said that 20 years ago. welcome to the world, kid
@@earnthis1 "They" may very well have said it, but I never thought it until I saw this film. And I am the only barometer that counts. Welcome to ME, world!
@Ice Hockey is Pretty Pretty Good Noted. Haven't seen it. Thank you.
This is my favourite review of once upon a time, this guy really gets and understands it 👍
Brad pitt stole the show
Not sure if Robbie meant the climactic sequence itself was “deeply moving”. Definitely the scene following it but the climactic sequence itself was rather satisfying as much as it was shocking.
I assume he meant the shots of them talking after the bloodbath. I found it very moving, one shot from above almost made them look slightly faded like ghosts and the voices distant. I found that very moving in light of what actually happened.
@@simonetta53logan the title card makes the film seem like a movie from the 60s and further emphasises the fantasy of what you're watching as well as the Once upon a time in Hollywood title suggesting a fairytale
The moved to tears part for him was a think when rick get to meets sharon right at the end which i loved
@@yeetboi9817 I got the impression that this film was made to make people who weren't alive during this era feel horribly envious. Tarintinos best movie.
When the girl had her faced smashed on every available hard surface? Deeply moving?
Or that other one freaking out in a never ending spasm of final death throes? I actually thought that was deeply amusing,I'm chuckling now thinking about it.
Robbie’s the best replacement for when Mark’s not around. Great review
anyone else think the film needs to have better pacing?
no
At some parts, but in general it was fine
Yep, still a good film though
Some of you are exhausting. I love Mark, but is what he says about this Tarantino going to differ from what he says about the majority of his others? No, probably not.
Great review. Loved the film as well - look forward to watching it again!
To add to the meta-ness of this film is the fact that it's partly about the end of old Hollywood and the beginning of new Hollywood and it's release in the present day where that New Hollywood is ending and a new era is beginning (I mean, Scorcese's releasing movies on Netflix for God's sake) and we have no idea where it's going, good or bad, or a mixture of both, is very interesting
Wish Kermode would have reviewed this
He will, when he comes on in the podcast.
The very last scene where Sharon met Rick was very moving. This is what should have happened.
Supposedly the original cut of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was 4 hours long, and I would have gladly sat there for the original cut and loved every minute of it. I loved escaping into the 1969 world that Tarantino created.
I completely agree. I found the film drew me in with absolute ease, the running time flew by. The film was intoxicating. Loved every minute.
Contrary to others, I'm glad Robbie reviewed it. Mark completely misunderstands Tarantino's movies ever since his Kill Bill rant on Newsnight review and his subsequent outburst during his Death Proof review on how Tarantino "cannot direct" and "cannot write" and all his movies are juvenile (with the exception of Jackie Brown). Sure, he's calmed down a bit over the course of Tarantino's subsequent 3 movies and has even enjoyed elements of those, but I don't think he'll ever truly be happy until he makes another "Jackie Brown".
morse I thought he didn’t like Jackie Brown.
@@halloweenfriday He loves Jackie Brown, he just doesn't particularly like everything else (although he did initially like RD and PF but later seems to have changed his mind).
Long in depth review. Who cares if it's not Mark. Robbie's solid
This guy has a serious edinburgh uni accent
Hahahah
'Banter Man wasn't gaen to be turning up, but he aes nae!'
relax guys. Mark will end up reviewing this film too due to the demand
I love Mark, but it seems to me like he hates Tarantino soooo much, that he wouldn't even admit it if he liked one.
ChrosTV I’ve seen Mark’s tweet regarding Once Upon A Time...In Hollywood, and I totally disagree with what he had to say about it.
Avengerie he said that one part was quintessential Tarantino, and the majority was Once Upon A Time in A-meh-rica.
The fight between Bruce Lee and Cliff was to show that Cliff was a good fighter, it wasn't pointless.
Tarantino says he buries exposition in all of this bullshit so it's not so noticeable.
still the movie was too long and unfocused
I thought it was to show Bruce Lee was a bit of a plonker.
Not pointless at all, funniest scene in the movie imho.
@@tinmachine693 Bruce Lee being a plonker had no significance on the rest of the movie. But yeah. It was a funny bit.
There is a 5min review in there somewhere 🤔
Nailed it. Best explication of this film I've seen - made me appreciate it more, and I've seen it six times. I think it is Tarantino's masterpiece.
Having now seen the film... the ending to this review is one of the most sublime I can ever recall.
Have seen it twice now, the first time on a superscreen and today on 35mm, mind blown on the latter.
This is definitely the best of Quentin Tarantino's recent output and stands head and shoulders above all out there now.
This is a film that can easily be watched multiple times, so layered and so much detail
Tarantino is that guy that sat glued to the TV and there are so many references to shows that he devoured, some say that the Rick Dalton character was partly based on Pete Duel from Alias Smith and Jones, who battled with depression, alcoholism and eventually died of a self inflicted gunshot wound to his head. Rick Dalton in a soliloquy threatens to blow his brains out after messing up his lines due to consuming eight whiskey sours the night before.
A rumour is that Gene LeBell did in fact manhandle Bruce Lee on the set of The Green Lantern, substitute Cliff Booth for Gene mixed in with a bit of Paul Newman and Hal Needham, who was Burt Reynolds stuntman and you have Brad Pitt's character.
Acting in this film is off the charts, forget about Margot Robbie not having many lines what about Roman Polanski one of the most influential Directors ever, I think he had one sentence in the entire movie.
Scenes and Dialogue have not been wasted in this film, would be interesting to know if Tarantino will release a Directors Cut with material that has been cut from this particular film.
I for one would pay to see it at the Cinema
The scene where Brad Pitt gets up on a roof to fix an aerial, hardly anything happens but rather like the entire film it is riveting.
This film really is a love letter to the forgotten people from the film & television industries in the Sixties & Seventies and I cannot wait to see it again.
Highly Recommended.
@@lkupiec1978 Very Welcome, have you seen it yet?
I think all his films are a love letter to other films. Especially Django being a love letter to western films. That being said I enjoyed hateful 8 far more. I didn’t feel like he knew what kind of movie he wanted to make he just wanted to make a film in the late 60s it has almost zero narrative and the vast majority of the scenes didn’t really have any purpose. That being said all the scenes were fantastic. The cinematography is great, the acting is great but for what purpose? What is it trying to say? I dont think anything. It felt like a collection of well written scenes strung together with a loose narrative to excuse ultra violence at the end. I wanna understand why it’s a masterpiece but I don’t get it.
@@richhartnell6233 I actually thought Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was a love letter to all that I said previously but also to Sergio Leone and his Once Upon A Time in the West and other so called Spaghetti Westerns.
They were a huge part of my childhood and sitting indoors glued to the TV that would have been quite a large part of his diet.
The ultra violence in the end I do not get, I mean I hate it, it distracts from all the good work and acting beforehand.
Your point about Tarantino not knowing what sort of film he wanted to make, could well be valid.
But I do believe he wanted to make this film following the lead characters for a couple of days and intertwining his side stories into the larger script.
I really liked it but I am the guy who loves slow dialogue heavy films as a general rule, which do not really go anywhere.
It’s a film for film buffs and film historians, anybody else will find mind numbingly boring.
I thought it was brilliant... until the ending which I found somewhat jarring. The world of late 60s Hollywood that Tarantino carefully crafts really is mesmerising. It had a certain easy quality about it, it didn't feel artificial or phoney, even down to the banal radio adverts for products that are long gone and no one remembers. Though you could see how attitudes to things like car seat belts and smoking were very different to today, it had a kind of immediacy to it that made it feel real; like you really were peering into the past or maybe even living it. All of the performances were great, and I think any criticism that Margo Robbie doesn't have enough dialogue really comes from people that don't understand what the role of her character is and what Tarantino is doing. I thought this was his best work, it avoided some of the pitfalls of his more recent films, nothing felt laboured despite the slow pacing for much of the running time. Nothing felt out of place; the humour felt natural. The way he built tension was brilliant, the scene at the 'Manson Family' ranch had me on the edge of my seat, the menacing atmosphere it conjured. Everything felt in balance and superbly done... until the finale. I won't give it away, but it felt like Tarantino chickened out of confronting the terrible destination his film was headed. All of a sudden the careful reality that he had built gave way to a scene from an earlier version of the director and it left the careful, thoughtful film that I had just sat through adrift in a strange alternate universe. I think that Tarantino was on the cusp of making a truly outstanding film, but threw it away with a return to type that at the end that left me a little disappointed. It's still a brilliant piece of work but... that ending...
I think you might be committing the same mistake you're accusing the folks who disliked how Sharon Tate was used of making. You don't understand what Tarantino was doing. Yes it is jarring, but the ending is completely thematically appropriate and totally thrillingly entertaining! It gives the kind of exclamation point that the slow pace of the film really earns. The film was brilliant before it but wouldn't be so gd legendary without it. All my opinion, not fact.
I've watched it twice, and I agree with Robbies review. Loved it. When your movie has a number of scenes, where you're driving around listening to the radio - that QT said is how he remembers his childhood growing up in LA - and the movie is 160 minutes long, you're going to get some lulls, but the production and characters just made me sit back and relax and take it all in, and makes the third act even more powerful. QT does well to ramp up the tension in the Spahn ranch, especially when you consider the big bad Cliff Booth is up against a bunch of teenage flower children. I think if you know about the Manson Family and The Tate Murders, you will love it more. Loved it, loved it!
I go to Tarantino's movie theatre on New Beverly - used to be an old porno theatre - where he personally curates an incredible festival of nightly double features on 16 + 35mm print. Every single night. Obscure, unknown, as well as classic movies - and he invites the cast and crew to come and talk about the films during the intermission. You can hear Mr Tarantino himself, laughing from somewhere in the small dark auditorium. He held the premiere to 'Once Upon A Time ... In Hollywood' here - and in the movie, Catherine Tate, on the night of the attack, as they go to dinner at El Coyote on New Beverly mentions ".. is that a premiere at the porno theatre?" Love the little easter eggs in there ;)
I used to go there a lot when I lived in LA, and that was my favourite line...
Just saw it and thoroughly enjoyed it, after disliking most of his previous films.
Amazing production design.
Despite it lacking a clear narrative, I was never bored, despite its length.
Great performances all around, but for me Margaret Qualley's performance stood and she managed to steal every scene she was in.
Glad Robbie put Jackie Brown in his top 3 QT films. Very underrated.
agree completely with robbies review . `have just watched it twice back to back and its almost unbearably brilliant . a masterpiece
Great review. I'm off to see this one again.
Guys, Mark has to go on holidays sometimes, and Robbie's a great substitute in the meantime. Stop whining.
This film needed a massive trim. So many scenes were just overly indulgent and pointless. Not enough tension, not enough fun. Too much director indulgence. 2 hours in I was just waiting for it to end.
Some good moments, but definitely not a Tarantino great.
Some brilliant performances but the film was pretty dull. I personally thought it was disrespectful to Sharon Tate given what really happened. I don't agree with this review but I think Robbie is great. He loves film knows his stuff. This film will divide people and make no sense to those who don't know what happened on that dreadful night
Angela D I agree with it being dull but in a way I’m glad they didn’t include her murder cause i feel like it would be romanticised in some way or another.
Her sister ok’d the script so if it’s good enough for her then it’s fine for me
Masterpiece - the way it divides some viewers/critics is a testament to its core strength. The film is so elegant in the way it both weaves its way to outcome but by all its multilayered parallels. This is the Tarantino film that critics and viewers will return again and again in years to come.
Initially disappointed that Mark didn't review this. Thought Robbie did a great job though.
@@cameronbevan748 not too sure. Maybe he's on his summer holiday- i suppose film critics are allowed time off too haha
They're on the cruise!
GaiusJulius395 Of course! Missed it again this year. 😢
He has. Not nearly as enthusiastic as Collin.
I hated this. Still love Tarantino tho. He's brought me too much joy in the past.
Mentioned Easy Rider, Peter Fonda died today.
Every time I’m reminded Tarantino has only made 9 movies I’m freaked out
If this was about cliff booth alone it would have been a worthwhile movie. Can't say i could ever watch that again without falling asleep. then again i would probably wake up and it would still be playing zzzzzzz.
@@npe9483 Haha I love a good slow burn but come on that tex and the other two did more walking than frodo and Sam ever did in lord of the rings to go up to the Dolton house.
@@npe9483 I can't say I enjoyed the film as a whole but there were great parts that wish were expanded on then there were reels of it I wish were cut. Like I said cliff booth was the most interesting character to me. If it was told from his perspective on everyone else and the fat cut .. that would have been a more attention grabbing movie.
I really disagree with Robbie here...
I think the film was at best above average, definitely not a masterpiece at all!
Ultimately I had a super fun time watching it but it was really long, pandering and self-indulgent in my opinion.
Tarantino has not been good since his editor Sally Menke sadly passed away
What's your thoughts on Avengers Endgame?
fearless vampire killers is a great horror/comedy film - starring sharon tate
It's interesting to hear so many interpretations of this movie
I’m surprised there’s been no mention of the absence of chapter breaks by film critics.
I thought it was pointless.
@@npe9483 interesting.
Good review, I enjoyed watching Once Upon A Time in Hollywood and will indeed be rewatching the movie soon,
it sounds amazing, can't wait to see it, glad to see robbie showing his appreciation for the lesser spotted jackie brown, my top QT film thus far
Disappointing film IMO. It's spends way too much time indulging in re-created scenes of the main character's TV shows & movies and has nothing deep or interesting to say. The period details are spot on but I've never been fully convinced by the two lead's acting abilities. As per usual De Caprio grimaces & Pitt swaggers throughout but neither of them are as handsome or effortlessly charismatic as old school stars like Redford or Newman. The last reel is also full of typically grotesque & indulgent violence which showcases the juvenile side of a filmmaker who's never really grown up.
I know it sounds crazy, and I'm a fan of both, but I agree Leo and Pitt weren't enjoyable enough to lead the entire film and its topic. I think they're better in doses (Django, Big Short) but here it just felt like an uninteresting drag. Give me two lesser known actors or like a Tom Cruise and it'd have worked better. Tarantino looked like he didn't pull out their best this time around.
A very good review, saw Once upon....today, definitely one of Tarantino's best movies, if not 'the' best. Both Pitt and DiCaprio were brilliant.
There’s a POST CREDIT SCENE that’s funnier than most of the gags in the movie
I didn't know that. Holy sh*t! I am so gonna watch it again XD
Yeah it was funnier than most the movie
Nice review, thanks for making it.
The Sharon Tate cinema scene was intended to make you feel sympathy for her, setting up the denouement later as rewritten Hollywood revenge.
They could've at least had Margo Robbie reenact those scenes, that way I would've felt sympathy.
It was obviously a tribute. I found Robbie being cute in the cinema moving enough.
@@babaganoosh585 Yeah, apparently being cute was all the move needed from her.
No, to actually impart all that takes acting chops, focus and courage, because you're laying your persona down for goofiness. We all knew the backstory going in so watching her passion was moving, because Tarantino knew we had the graphic and visceral tragedy imprinted.
Loved this film, visually beautiful. So well acted . The final scene was so sad... if only in real life it ended that way 😢
I am off to see this movie today and of all the reviews I've listened to,this one has really stimulated my anticipation the most.
I totally love this film,,,,, seen it 4 times at the flicks,,, would love to see it once a month,,, as you see so many different things each time. Good to see Jarvis cocker doing film reviews now!!!!
It is currently my film of the year.
Ultramarine Andy is it your first?
Matt Lacy it is really one of those marmite type movies that will split the audience. I have seen about 30 movies at the cinema this year with once Upon a time in Hollywood being at the top and the somewhat pedestrian pet sematary being at the bottom
You must be a pseud
I was never ever bored while watching a movie. Until now.
youre lying
I don’t care what anyone say... this film is one of Tarantino’s best
Seeing it tomorrow, without spoiling it (not that you would on purpose) why is it one of the best?
Instant iconic scenes, amazing performances from literally everyone (including a little girl), a surprisingly melancholic mature tone (like Jackie brown), soundtrack that gets stuck in your head (like pulp fiction) best ending to any film ever made. It’s an amazing love-letter while deconstructing the myth of Hollywood life. It’s in my top 3 or 4 Tarantino films, but not top 2.
S C I agree!
@@samcohen99 glad to hear it!
Just piling on so hopefully Mark shares his thoughts as well. No disrespect to Robbie Collin, he does great job but his name isn't in the channel name. I subscribed to hear Mark's reviews and he's got an entertaining history talking about Tarantino films
The Bruce Lee sequence was a fantasy, why doesn't anyone else get that?!
Of course, we must all know what Mark thinks of the film, in order for us to know what our own opinion of it is. ‘Mark LOVED it?! Then I think I love it’
This is a terrific review.
the only comparison i could think of, weirdly enough, was with Bojack Horseman for anything even slightly similar (DiCaprio fighting with himself in the trailer, smoking and drinking a lot when he's on screen, trying to cope with being seen as a has-been and moving from project to project, listening to music/rehearsing for scenes in his giant pool)
i really liked it, had only a passing knowledge of the Sharon Tate murder (embarrasingly it took them name-checking Polanski before the penny dropped, had vaguely heard or read bits throughout my life about their having been a tragic home invasion at his home)
some of the more dramatic/serious parts that hit home surprisingly strongly, most of all when Leo completes a scene and the little girl says something nice to him, and some of the comic/absurd lines had me in stitches. One right at the end is one of my personal faves, paraphrasing but Leo going "Well the hippies f***in' ain't, that's for god damn sure" considering all that's gone on was a proper lol
I know this other guy from my childhood if I am right, he did a documentary for discovery Channel when he came to India... I remember him being funny..... Reminds me of days when TV was enjoyable
He could be 30 or 60 I've no idea dressed like woody Allen
The film completely relies on the audience having knowledge of the Manson murders. If you don't have that knowledge the film doesn't work. Definitely not a masterpiece.
David James i don’t think the movie was supposed to be about Sharon Tate solely. I honestly still don’t know what it’s about. I have speculation but I like to see movies more than once before reviewing them. But i think the Sharon Tate / Manson family/ stuff was the hook for the bait. And the actual fill is more of an ensemble based around the events of late 60s Hollywood. The Sharon part included. But not the focal point
@@PineapplePoko A masterpiece is self-contained, it does not require additional materials...
I love this film
Happy to have discovered Robbie’s genius
Leo deserves an Oscar! Tarantino wisely toned down the violence and did his usual brilliant usurping of film history. L.A. never looked better. No criticism save one thing. Sometimes he imposes his virtuosic cinematography style in moments that cannot support it. He creates with verisimilitude old TV acting, so why tart it up with show-offy modern cinematic styles never seen in early TV?
Absolutely loved it, brilliant Di Caprio performance and I usually cannot stand him. The biggest grin on leaving the cinema. Loved how uncompromising it is - you have to know so much for it to make any sense at all.
Why don’t you like Leo
@@livefromthemotherland It's maybe his choices more than him & the people he plays - The Revenant was beyond bad, especially that final mug to the camera. I utterly, utterly hated Wolf of Wall Street & Inception. The only movie of his I liked prior to this was Blood Diamond
Dave Brickley did you see the aviator ? Probably my favorite by him. That’s just amazing acting. I didn’t see the revenant yet. Blood diamond was good but the accent threw me off. Inception was so complicated I’d have to watch it again to critique it. He was great in Django too. But I get you on the choices part. But when it comes to his ability I’d say he’s one of the best in the business
Live From The Motherland fair play I forgot Django, he was really great in that
He’s such a good actor he can act an actor acting badly. Lol
I was anxious to see Kermode’s review because he hates Tarantino. I didn’t like the movie as much as the critics did. It’s not on the top of my Tarantino’s movies
A credit to Robbie here, did not spoil anything. It blindsided me tbh. I do think one would enjoy it more if one was familiar with the Manson murders.
Where is Mark??
Why would he say oh no at 13:52 ? I was thinking oh yes. We get to see people get what they deserve. Seems a nice guy Robbie but reviewing violent movies doesnt suit him. Also he has a wardrobe made for radio, just a shame it now has cameras.
The movie plays better for us boomers, than even X-ers, let alone Millennials. Even before we hear the name Polanski in the film, when Tarrantino gave us the street-sign "Cielo Dr", many of us of that age knew where this was leading to. Hence, when the Family members get the wrong address and Tarantino twists history 180 degrees from where where we thought it was going to, yeah the theater audience reactions were sincere itmn just LOVING and cheering those human monsters getting ripped to shreds, pulverized, and flambed.
Think Robbie smoked the acid cigarette when reviewing this tosh! 😂🤣
Loved it, fully agree with Robbie
I think that maybe the last big film of 'old Hollywood' was "The Green Berets" in 1968. The plot was ultra patriotic & cringingly sentimental. Young soldiers on leave from the Vietnam war openly laughed & mocked it in cinemas. John Wayne revived his credibility the following year with "True Grit". Hollywood was more mature & cynical from that point on.
He does talk a lot... confirmed by the amount of 'very's used... thankfully he did manage to avoid giving too much away, though strayed a little close to the edge. I'd like to hear Mark Kermode's views... I loved it... was completely disorientated by it, but loved it all the same... Di Caprio & Pitt deserve oscars for their performances and of course Tarantino for his writing, directing, & producing
I thought the end was hilariously funny and supposed to be. I think Robbie missed something here.
Wasn't funny for me. Nobody around me laughed either.
@@lfc7763 the whole cinema for my screening was in stitches even like a minute after
I guess the violence is done in a comical way but the end when Sharon introduces herself to rick was very moving. Not knowing (in the films universe) how close she has just come to death... what could have been :(
Brutal violence doesn't tend to make me chuckle to be honest
Cody Power not even if it’s done in a comical way? Fargo is extremely violent and hilarious!
Who is the guy Robbie is talking to?
I'm gonna assume he's an actor since he said he was in Paddington 2.
Calm down you muppets - it looks like Kermode discusses this film on the latest episode of his podcast
It's called "Kermode on Film" and it's on ACast
you have to understand... you have to understand... you have to understand. you shouldn't have to understand so much for a film to work.
Films and their settings have never lived in a vacuum
I wasn't expecting Kenny Everett to be reviewing this.
etdj909 I thought it was Jarvis cocker
@@LukefromDubai Genetic hybrid : Mr Bean / Basil Fawlty / Inspector Gadget / Magnus Pike / Kenny Everett / Young Kubrick
GOD DAMN IT, ALL THIS TIME WAITING AND MARK DOESN'T END UP REVIEWING THE DAMN MOVIE!!!
I could hardly get through the pseudo-intellectual claptrap at the beginning of this review. What everyone seems to have missed is the absolute delight the incidental 60s references occurring throughout the film (and during the credits) are for anyone who was around in the 60s. This was the Tarantino film I enjoyed the most, not least because it contained two of the most suspenseful sequences I can ever remember seeing in a film. It was only when the title came up at the end that I realised, with a feeling of great pleasure, its importance.
Where’s Kermode?
Fact is, this movie didn’t this director attached it wouldn’t be reviewed as well.
NPE 94 I think the op commenter is just saying this movie is getting so much attention because of the name behind it. Not that anyone else could make this type of film