Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) | Movie Review + Spoiler Talk
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- I hope you enjoyed my review and discussion of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, and if you’ve seen it already-I would love to talk about it with you in the comments below! Did you love it? What did you think of the ending? Are you sad we didn’t get more Manson Family stuff in there? Let me know! This gorgeous film was written and directed by the one and only Quentin Tarantino, and is starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Timothy Olyphant, Austin Butler, Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, and Al Pacino.
#OnceUponATimeInHollywood #moviereview #ImpressionBlend
Looking for my movie reviews? Check out this playlist: • MOVIE REVIEWS
Interested in a good book about the Manson Family murders?
Check out “Helter Skelter” by Vincent Bugliosi
Amazon: amzn.to/2YITMai
Book Depository: bit.ly/2Ls29kA
↠ Support my channel on PATREON:
/ impressionblend
↠ WHERE ELSE TO FIND ME:
TWITTER - / impressionblend
INSTAGRAM - / impressionblend
FACEBOOK - / impressionblend
LETTERBOXD - letterboxd.com/...
GOODREADS - / impressionblend
WEBSITE - www.impressionb...
↠ P.O. BOX:
Marianna Neal
P.O. Box 7406
Prospect Heights, IL 60070
↠ DISCLAIMER:
This video is not sponsored. Images and clips are under fair use, and are copyright material of their respective owners. Some of the links are affiliate links.
You could be Scarlett Johansson's 'Stunt Double'
A lot of people say it's questionable whether Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) needed to be in this movie because her part felt insignificant to them. BUT... that's the whole point. Had the movie been about what really happened to her, then she would have been a protagonist in the film, but since her tragic death (which is what she's most famous for) doesn't happen in this alternative universe she is a mere side-character. On top of that Cliff and Rick don't know her personally so there is a lot of distance there. The whole movie is a sort of ideal reality in which everything that unfortunately happened doesn't happen, which is why the ending is so strong. Without an appearance by Sharon Tate in the movie this ending wouldn't have made sense, or wouldn't have been so sentimental. And the scenes you do see of Sharon Tate sort of show her innocence and show a day in her life, and shows how many future days of her life could have looked if she wasn't murdered.
I think the ending was the most satisfying thing ive ever seen. When Rick walked out of his tool shed, the whole theater cheered
You live in the US? Cause i could mot care less about sharon tate and therefor was not very statesfied with the ending, it was fun sure, but 90% of the movie was just super boring.
It is one of the most overrated movies ever and only did sell cause Tarrantio directed it, and Pitt, Dicaprio and Robbie are in it.
@@migalorsdarwin1930 shut up. If you don't live in America, then the movie wasn't ment for you. So you're opinion is invaled and also you suck.
Re Sharon Tate and not having more of her in the movie, I think that is because the movie is all from the point of view of Rick and Cliff's characters. And since they haven't met Sharon, but only seen her from afar, it makes sense the way she is presented in the film. Just my take. The two main characters are Rick and Cliff, and all the other characters are purposefully minor. They aren't intended to have bigger parts or for the audience to see things through their point of view.
That’s actually a really good explanation. It would also make sense why we don’t really see the Manson family until Cliff meets the girl in his car and then gets introduced to them at the ranch. I was disappointed they disappeared from the movie at that point until far after the “6 months later.” But I guess since neither Cliff nor Rick interacted with them, then we don’t see them. Nice job. Thanks for that.
See, that would be a perfectly good explanation had we only seen Tate through Rick and Cliff's point of view. However, she has scenes that have nothing to do with the two of them, which could have been used to add complexity and depth to her character.
@Impression Blend
Fair enough. The most obvious scene with Tate to cut out was her at the movie theatre watching her movie. That really did lead to nothing and took a good 5-10 minutes of screen time. Maybe some of her other scenes just dancing around could’ve been left out as well.
@@ImpressionBlend
When you were watching that movie, I guarantee you weren't having that thought at all. "More Sharon. Deeper Sharon". You didn't have that thought until after you saw the movie and heard other people saying it who didn't have the thought until they heard other people saying it and so on. It's a human phenomenon Known as parroting.
This movie was about an aging actor and his stunt double. Sharon was a minor role in my untrained eye..
If writers wasted screen time developing every minor character beyond what is necessary, movies would be twice as long and 3x more boring.
I'm sorry, Lisa, but that's a lot of assuming on your part about what I was thinking and what I wasn't. Yes, the flatness of Tate's character actually stood out to me as I was watching the film. And no, I don't watch other people's reviews until I film my own, so I'm not "parroting" anyone. You enjoyed the movie as it was, that's fine, so did I, but I had issues with it. We don't need to see things the same way - that's the beauty of art.
In my opinion, Sharon Tate was a thematic stand-in for the future of cinema (or Hollywood in general), and considering the way she's depicted (her love and empathy are pretty fleshed out), I think what Tarantino was getting at was a reconciliation of past and future(considering where Dalton and Tate end up), and it illustrates some semblance of growth for Tarantino, because this could have easily been a bitter, reflexive take on what cinema became after the 1960's, but instead, he shows love and respect for both eras.
Also, Tate's scene in the movie theater was beautiful and one of the most emotional/empathetic moments of Tarantino's career imo. Idk, I loved the film to pieces, but I certainly enjoyed your video!
People started to love this movie more a few years after it came out. I’ve watched it at least 38 times since 2019. It’s definitely my favorite movie by his! 🎥
I felt the same when I first watched it at the cinema back in 2019. I had to see it two more times before I finally got it. It's more of a "hangout" movie, similar to 'Jackie Brown' rather than a narrative driven story like 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Inglourious Basterds'. I love how it was a love letter to the bygone era of Classic Hollywood. All of his films are love letters to particular genres. I loved how this movie was like a time capsule of 1960s Hollywood and Filmmaking. The climax with the Manson Family at the end was fantastic! I loved it! It was such a subversion of what really happened, similar to 'Inglourious Basterds'. Overall, I do love it now. It's not my favourite of his work, but it's still really good.
Nice review! I'm not usually a fan of meandering plots, but I really dug this one. The 60s setting was done so well! The music and small details like tv commercials or radio spots made it really immersive.
On the first watch I had with OUATIH, I would have agreed with you on Sharon Tate only slowing the movie down. But honestly, I think just seeing her be free and not being burdened by a story honestly made her endearing enough to watch imo.
I personally loved it, I would put it on my top 5 Tarantino movies, I love the great callbacks from the great escape , Wilhelm scream to spaghetti westerns. I personally liked that Tarantino showed sharon tate on a positive light and not that tragic event that defines her legacy instead she's a fun loving upcoming actress in a way she's the soul of the movie. I only thing I didn't like was that one Bruce Lee scene. Also that reds apple scene during the credits is pure gold
havent seen it yet ...was about to...
Wow, for me the Bruce scene was fucking golden 🤣
One of the highlights
Oberyn, The review you just give was better than the video review
I loved it. Not just the ending like others are saying but I loved it as a whole.
My favorite scene was Brad Pitt driving home, making macaroni & cheese and feeding his dog. 10 minutes of almost no dialogue but I actually felt like I was in the movie, driving through Los Angeles, parking next to the drive-in theater and getting comfortable at home. THIS scene reminds me of how Tarantino can shoot something so simple and still make it exceptional.
Girls in general are not liking this movie, because it's a buddy picture about men trying to stay relevant.
My wife hated it, and she's an actress who's been in over 60 movies and tv shows. I thought for sure she would love it, but nope.
There are a lot of great scenes in there, no doubt.
Strange observation about girls though. I can't speak for everyone, and I enjoyed the movie to begin with, but I've seen plenty of reviews online from other women who actually loved the film. People just have different preferences and tastes, slice of life films aren't for everyone.
A rumored ending I had heard was that Rick, Cliff and Bruce Lee go to Spahn Ranch in the end and eliminate the rest of the clan in an over the top martial arts/shootout. Heard the idea of Bruce Lee strangling Manson with his own hands...
I was disappointed at first with the ending after listening to all the rumors. But now I’ve come to love the ending as nearly perfect. I think part of what this reviewer didn’t get was that this was sincerely not a movie about Charles Manson...it’s about the high water point of the 60’s optimism. It is communicated by QT, that at least in the cinema; it didn’t have to end. And such is the beauty of cinema.
A Manson biopic would have been weak considering his style and he would’ve been criticized for it no matter what method actor he cast to play Charlie. And...come on...aren’t we a little tired of movies that try to let us in to the psyche of horrendous criminals? As if we need to understand their mindset...Is that really so interesting? This movie says fuck that, let’s do something original. Let’s do what no one else would’ve done and give that dark period of history a happy ending.
Finally someone I think I agree with regarding this movie. A display of erudition of this caliber belongs more in some sort of audiovisual olympic games than in an expression of allegedly narrative art. A compendium of cultural artifacts not connected by anything but their presence at a given place in space and time is something more akin to an encyclopedia, regardless of the media delivery format.
I'm enjoying your channel, keep up with the good work!
I like your comment that Tate's life was much more complex than QT shows in the film. The film shows her as this simple, joyous eye-candy and nothing else. Personally, Tarantino is overrated. He is technically a brilliant director, but as an "auteur" or "artist" he is superficial, flashy and self-indulgent. Infantile almost. Like most of the old films he is a fan of.
Well it just arrived here in Tbilisi Georgia. And I made sure I didn't watch your review until after I saw it. I can see what you are saying. But I'm also guessing you had more or rather different expectations than I did. I liked the film a lot. Then again I was a child living in California then. I got 95 percent of the music, film, cultural and Manson references. And I settled in for a drive down Sunset Boulevard ca. '69. I did think it was largely comedic, which then would have made a deep dive in Mansonia a sticky wicket. I actually thought he handled the 'Shmanson' (I'm still chuckling over that name.) stuff quite well by NOT focusing on Manson himself, which has been done cinematically far too many times. Tarantino knows that. I actually loved his depiction of the Spahn Ranch commune. Also I think that Sharon Tate was supposed to be a ghostly dream, with the end essentially saying, don't you wish you could have just stopped by for lunch and talked with her, instead of counting the stab wounds one more time. I think the movie could have maybe should have been another hour longer. Or even a mini series on TV. And that would have added more depth. But was depth the point? I think not. For me the whole film came down to Brad Pitt tripping on acid in his confrontation with the murderers. I actually rate this higher than Django, Jackie Brown, Death Proof, maybe even Hateful Eight. But that's just me. I know I certainly want to see this again to pick up what I know I missed. Thanks Marianna for giving me something to think about as always.
Oh yea, the Ranch stuff was great! Hence why I wish we would have seen more of it :) Glad you enjoyed the movie!
How you describe Sharon Tate is exactly what it's like for everyone in Hollywood. She really wasn't special before she died and after she died she really wasn't much more special. The death of Sharon Tate is exactly why we know who Sharon Tate is today.
Sharon Tate was represented in the film perfectly. A minor player in Hollywood, a minor player in the movie. The fact that she didn't die in this movie is as surprising as her death in real life. (Not an artistic observation, just an observation) This movie also isn't about her. It's just a story and she happens to be right outside of it. The fact that Margot Robbie is a living, breathing Sharon Tate has us thinking about the movies progression the whole time and what is going to happen to her. Especially seeing as her character has been introduced briefly and ultimately remains a mystery until the end, and then you have Quentin being Quentin.
Second review of yours I have seen. Liked it very much. I don't entirely agree, but I do think that you do make some very good points. I see the movie as Tarantino saying goodbye to what Hollywood was, that idealized version that he loved. Even though the period after is much more synonymous with his work. Sharon Tate and Manson were that dividing point in history. So they are kind of there to represent that idea, which is why I think that he didn't give a complete character for either. They are almost there as tropes. That's just my ramblings.
Your eyes are so beautiful.
To really appreciate this film you have to be a certain age. The film is one big flashback to the 1960s, the scenes make me remember things that happened at the time, there was much freedom then, much hope for the future, Tarantino is essentially saying, if we had dealt with the Manson people the right way, this cool concept of living might have continued. Manson called his people "slippys", people pretending to be hippys to get over
Great review! As for Sharon Tate's role, I definitely think she served a purpose in the film as the future of Hollywood. I do think what you said about her was interesting and could have been explored perhaps, but I don't think Tarantino was going for that. I think he just wanted to be respectful of Sharon and give her life. Anyways, I agree with your take on the finale in that it feels abrupt and out of nowhere, but it was still enjoyable at least.
Excellent review. Couldn't have said it better myself. Take out 15 minutes of Rick Dalton's screen time and give it to the Manson family.
Thank you! I feel like some people are giving this one a higher rating than it deserves just because it's Tarantino. And I relate, I love Tarantino, but guys...
You need to see it a couple times. You'll figure it out someday.
Those who love this movie grew up in 60s. The interaction between Leonardo DiCaprio and the child actor Trudi Fraser (Julia Butters) was hilarious and heartwarming. Trudi stole the show not Brad Pitt. The last 20 minutes of this movie is awesome.
Sounds like you went into this thinking it was a Manson Family movie and, knowing Tarantino, you assumed that Manson himself would be satisfyingly slayed. This is the first time I have watched one of your vids but you seem to have an excellent movie knowledge and a passion for film! That being said, it was commonly known months before the release that this wasn't a Manson movie. Your expectations should have been cleared or at the very least updated. Planning on watching more of your reviews, just confused why anyone would go into a Tarantino film thinking they know it's intent.
Hmmm I'm not sure why you think I had these expectations, maybe something I said was misleading. But no, I didn't think it was going to be a Manson Family movie going in-I've seen the articles stating otherwise prior to the release (which is why I was warning people who may have only heard about the early "Manson" pitch in the media). My issues had to do with the way the movie unfolded and the way certain characters were used, not any kind of set expectations. Ok, I guess I expected this to look fantastic and to be some sort of love letter to Hollywood, but those expectations were 100% met :)
Many of Margot Robbie's scenes that were 100% an homage to Sharon Tate, even if it wasn't a main plot point. I think it risked bordering on awkward and insensitive had Tarantino "played around" too much w Sharon's character given her tragic murder and high profile murder. The "point" of having her in the movie imo was to play clips of her old movies and show old pictures of her as part of his love letter to old Hollywood. I don't rly see anything wrong with that, if anything I found it very touching and beautiful as someone who knew what happened to her.
I'll say that I liked the movie slightly more than you did as I gave it a 4/5. My main issue is I think the writing could've been little stronger. I feel Sharon Tate was there to show the contrast between her and Leo's character. I really enjoyed the third act and the buildup to the over the top last scene. There has been pretty big criticism on the portrayal of Bruce Lee. I can see why some are upset especially his daughter but I also view it as a fictional character made up in Brad's character mind. Off topic, are you planning to watch A24's The Farewell? I thought it was really good. My favourite so far this year.
I love slice of life films and i loved this film sorry you didnt love it Marianna i did
I didnt think the violence came out of nowhere. Tarantino claims Inglorious Basterds took real history and added fictional characters to see how they would have altered history. This movie does the exact same thing but with the Sharon Tate incident. If sharon tate had a neighbor that yelled at the hippies before the attack, things might have gone differently.
In "Inglourious Basterds" the violence is what the entire film builds towards, we anticipate the scene at the theatre because it's where our characters want to deal with the Nazis. In "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" the rest of the film is really about other things, but then we get the "knocked on the wrong door" thing. That's is a pretty big difference there.
A very good review! I loved the movie, and I'll buy it and watch it from time to time just for the nostalgia and the acting alone. This one however was missing the Tarantino trademark of a scene were there is a long conversation with tension building followed by chaos ensuing such as in the Kill Bill series and Inglorious Basterds. The closest was when Brad Pitt visited the ranch, in which I thought his life was in the balance and which I thought was the best scene in the movie.
Seen it x3. I see the overindulgence. I don't care. It really helps to understand this time period. As a dude of 61, I envied the friendship of Rick and Cliff.
I think we would all love a friend like Cliff :)
Tarantino should have at least given the dog more screen time and dialogue. For heaven's sake He wasn't even in the credits.😀
She
Sharon Tate character was a shout out to all talented but not well known actors that are in the industry today. They’re talented, fun and have the potential to become huge stars but they never shine. They stay as distant stars. That’s what Sharon Tate was, a distant star that made us curious but never got the chance to know better.
I think you got it mistaken about the manson issue. It's a fantasy and in the end he wanted to give sharon tate a happy ending, which she did'nt get in her real life. So yeah changing names of the the manson family and other things will make it some other film.
When I was watching Cliff at the Spahn Ranch, one person came to mind: stuntman Shorty Shea, who frequented the ranch in real life and was killed by Manson and a couple of his family members. I'm fairly sure Tarantino was referencing Shea through Pitt's character.
I'd argue this is a movie you need to see more than once. Go see it again I guarantee you'll enjoy it more knowing what is coming. Like many of Tarantono movies, like some albums, you need to have a few viewings to marinate in the world.
Never needed that for a Tarantino movie before though
@@ImpressionBlend I needed it for Inglorious Basterds. I wasn't quite sure what I watched and how to comprehend it all, so much there. Now Basterds is my 2nd favorite Tarantino film, and maybe the most rewatchable of all of his for me.
I think because "Inglourious Basterds" was the first Tarantino I saw on the big screen I was immediately blown away despite the ending taking me by surprise, and it will always be very special to me. What's your favorite then?
@@ImpressionBlend Pulp Fiction. I know, boring answer haha, but it is just a great damn movie. I went and saw Once Upon A Time again and I really enjoyed it more the second time, probably in my top 5 Tarantino movies. DiCaprio and Pitt in that 1969 Tarantino Hollywood is just really good and enjoyable for me. Plus the music, and atmosphere is something you want to go back to.
Nothing wrong with that! "Pulp Fiction" is a masterpiece!
This was a very shallow nostalgia trip that I didn’t even find terribly funny. The length was annoying given how many set pieces felt like a waste of time. Can anyone tell me why we went to the Playboy Mansion? Or what we learned about Tate from hanging out with her? And the ending was straight up offensive and juvenile. You are right - why put the Manson family in at all? Other than the buzz and sensationalism it generated.
This film needs to be watched more than once, as it's a very subtle piece and much deeper than it first appears. The late sixties & early seventies was one of, if not the the most signification time in cinema. Tarantino's story juxtaposes those events literally and metaphorically in the same way "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Wolf" or "Closer" deals with both 'a' relationship and 'all' relationships. I think In a few years people are going to re-watch this and it's just click into place, but i could be wrong - time will tell.
I've ignored Once Upon a Time in Hollywood from the below list because a film needs a couple of years to settle.
Pulp Fiction
Hateful Eight
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs (maybe should be lower but i have a soft spot)
Kill Bill
Death Proof (really underrated)
Ingorious Basterds
Django Unchained
Four Rooms (it counts)
I appreciate this review. Tarantino may have phoned this one in. In an interview with Leo, Leo looked kind of annoyed at Tarantino. His expression was like, does this guy ever stop talking. And Tarantino's own comments lead me to believe that he sort of treated this project like a lazy Sunday afternoon drive, going 15 in a 30. This context should somehow be applied to the movie because it makes the whole experience of watching it so much more fun. Do you know how Quentin directed Leonardo's performance? He just kept telling him facts that he knew about the old television cowboy actors that he watched on TV as a kid. And Leo would somehow drew something from his little factoids. Hey Mariana, what do you say we get married?
I agree that Quentin took for granted we all know how the Manson massacre happened, and it isn't the focus of the film. I'd have loved to see more Margot on screen, but it's about Leo and Brad characters. Brad Pitt steals the show, the movie is too long but the ending is pure Tarantino. Inglourious Basterds is my personal favorite of his..
Same for me, "Inglourious Basterds" is his masterpiece ))
Yes to everything you said. You touched on all of the issues I also had with the film, that and a long-winded second act. Thank you for your review, Marianna!
Thanks for watching!
I love Cliff Booth. Brad Pitt has never been cooler.
Hmm. I've rarely if ever been More satisfied at the end of it.
It was like seeing my childhood reimagined in a slightly different dimension. I grew up there. He got so much right.
It was like time travel
Agree with the depiction of Sharon Tate, but I believe Tarantino didn't want to glorify Manson or his family in any particular way, so kept them out of the film as much as he could.
Which also leads into the ending's bloodbath. The Family are not depicted in a dangerous fashion at all, and their actions and subsequent murders at the hands of a stunt double high off his head and a washed-out actor with a flamethrower are meant to ridicule them even further.
In regards to Manson, excluding him from the film is another way to avoid depicting him in any particular light. I think we can all agree that because one party of people see an individual as bad, another group can just as easily see that person in a completely different light. It's another way of taking power away from the image of someone like that; while Inglorious Bastards mocks Hitler by exploding him with a machine gun, Once Upon A Time in Hollywood mocks Charles Manson by depriving him of the attention he so desperately craved and completely ignoring him.
When I thought about it like this my opinion of the film almost completely changed; I went from "ah, it was pretty good" to thinking it was another excellent work from Tarantino, and something that almost took him out of his comfort zone. Almost.
I can understand the reasoning behind it - whether it's giving Sharon a happier life, making Manson insignificant, etc. But I wish this didn't have to be done at the cost of character depth, particularly with Sharon. Manson himself - whatever, I was more interested in the commune anyways, though I wouldn't mind seeing him get killed in the finale.
Ultimately, the problem ended up being (for me) that there isn't much of a story, and with a movie THIS long - there is only so much driving around and going about their day scenes I can watch before I start wondering what was the reason for the runtime. Yes, Tarantino loves Hollywood, and the visuals/performances are great, but it left me wanting more.
I'm sorry, but it's actually a 4.9/5.
Technicaal 4,5/5 acting 4,9/5 Plot 0/5 entertaining 0,5/5 (most important= Most disapointing movie i watched in the last 10 years
Also, i think he didnt kill manson because the people who actually killed sharon tate were the ones to be punished. Manson isnt special, he was just an asshole with a power trip. The real killers deserved the extreme deaths not him imo
Not a big movie fan but I will watch this one on my next long haul flight to Asia.... thanks for the review
He wanted to step on manson, thats what ya'll don't get. Therefore he don't even mention "Manson", just shown him in a brief scene. The hippies just call him charlie.
I think the movie is fundamentally about posibility. It tries to get us to imagine what might have been or what is possible despite our expectations for the worst. On the one hand we expect to see the Manson murders. The plot basically leads up to that. But instead of that we get something else and Sharon Tate doesn't die. We are left with imagining what might have been for her as a young aspiring actress. In the case of Di Caprio and Brad Pitt we are led to believe they are at the end of their careers, that they will slowly fade and become unknowns. Instead, they experience some unexpected success and creative fulfillment and at the end of the film we are left with the possibility that while they may not turn out to be big stars things will turn out ok for them too. This idea of imagining the worst, which I think in our time many people are prone to do, and then instead seeing that not materialize and instead see something positive happen is a twist that plays with the audience's expectation and leads us to hope for the best generally. From a film which I was worried would depict the Manson murders in an insensitive manner or a pulpy Tarantinoesque manner instead I was personally left with a very positive sense of what could be. I enjoyed this film very much mainly for this rather surprising good humored feeling it leaves you with. I have not been left with a feeling like this in quite some time from a movie. It felt as though Tarantino was reaching out to people wishing good things on them and trying to compel us all more towards altruism. In Tarantino's other films in which he depicts righteous vengeance (slave against slave owner, jew against nazi, etc) there is always something deep and dark about the violence. It is tinged with a kind of terrible frightening quality. In this movie as Brad Pitt starts tripping, laughing and lets his dog do the business the whole scene becomes funny and absurd and loses that dark edge. I think it serves this film very well
I couldn't agree more with this review. It was funny and very skillfully made like all Tarantino films, but i'm 24. I don't have that nostalgia for 1969 hollywood that the movie uses to carry itself through 2hr 40mins in place of a plot. Also, am I the only one who didn't know who Sharon Tate was? I felt a little cheated when I was thinking aloud "why was Margot Robbie even in this film" and my friend explained who she was and what happened to her.
I haven't seen it yet, i'll have to wait until it comes out in my country.
Great video btw. Mariana, are you planning on doing a bluray collection video??
THIS is why we haven’t seen the film, despite loving Tarantino. Thank you for your elegant, measured, honest review, M! X
loving, right...
@@lfc7763 Erm. Yeah. Loving.
See it you fool its landmark cinema.
@@chrisghost100 Cheers. Maybe when it's streaming.
1 hour of driving scenes. Seems like Tarintino watched Twin Peaks Return with that series having long boring pointless driving scenes and said .."hold my beer"
I recall feeling similar. I liked this movie, but there was something missing for me. Though, in my opinion, I found that the ending redeemed the movie from being just good. In fact, I'd say that Once Upon a Time In Hollywood had the best ending of 2019, at least in my opinion.
Rumors of a 4-hour edit to be released, on the Q.T., can’t wait.
Really? I guess, that's not surprising
Excellent review. I completely agree. However it is growing on me. I choose to think that the ending was a twist seen through the eyes of brad Pitt acid dipped cigarette. Sharon Tate and friends were still murdered by Manson family, then went to Pitt decaprio house. Pitt kills Manson family and lived with knife in leg. Decapio died hence the conversation with Seabring, gates opening, and meeting Sharon Tate and friend’s in heaven. Tin foil I know, but I like thinking that besides how it actually ended. There has to be more to the ending right?
Honestly, with every new Tarantino movie I've fallen more and more out of love with his style. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs still stand as his best work. Back then his direction was a breath of fresh air, and not yet overbearing. But over time the style over substance ratio kept increasing. I don't know if it's his ego, but his movies became self-indulgent. So many scenes scream 'look how cool and clever I am!'.
There's the animation bit in Kill Bill, and the anti-climatic dialogue-heavy end of Kill Bill 2.
Inglourious Basterds is still my favourite Tarantino film, but at the end I was shaking my head once again; it was mostly a return to form with some of his best scenes ever (the opening, the tavern, every second with Landa,...), but in the end he couldn't help himself. It's as if he had been biting his tongue for 2 hours and couldn't restrain himself any longer. I know many people like the over-the-top massacre, but it took me out of the film, and almost ruined it for me. And then there's that Bowie song out of nowhere...
Django and Hateful 8 are two movies I didn't care for at all. I had no interest in the stories or the characters. And once again the characters felt like puppets reciting snappy lines from Tarantino.
So I have little interest in this film; I'll catch it on the tv in a few years, but that's about it.
Django Unchained and Hateful 8 are his best movies.
I feel similar like you, that i fell out of love with his movies, pulp fiction is still my favorite. Yeah just do not waste your time with OUATIH it is the most boring thing ever90% of boredom if not more.
Spot on literally every word you said except yes Manson was not there so I didn’t care about that part
Mixed feelings is precisely how i would describe my experience with this film too lol.
First time on your channel. Great review. Spot on take on the movie. Kudos!
6:05 So... it sounds like Tarantino inverted the reality of the history in more ways than one.
Have you seen The Babadook ? If not then you totally should , it is a 5 star for me .
avarage movie 6/10
I actually kinda loved it, but i can see where you're coming from. I enjoyed it a lot, the characters alone did it for me, personally i didn't feel the lenght and the ending, more than satisfactory, it was cathartic. You just don't get movies like this that often, at least in my opinion. Probably not Tarantino's best, but it's his most mature effort since Jackie Brown.
I hate seeing people say how the ending makes up for the rest of the film and instantly call it a masterpiece because of how Tarantino it is.
The ending is great, but not worth it after 2.5 hours.
I'm honestly surprised people say this, especially considering how little the rest of the film has to do with the ending.
saw it the first time, gave it an A -. After realizing what the film is, saw it a second time giving it an A+.
Seen it five times, so far. Gets better each screening.
Baggy, self indulgent without a purpose and should have been cut into half. I was bored most of the time (and believe me I am often accused and laughed at that I watch movies in Cinemas where there are only 5 people in audience lol). However, the great acting and filmmaking make it a reasonable movie. This could have been a decent movie if it was 80-90 minutes.
I would give it 58/100.
Most underrated Tarantino film is Four Rooms
Can you ask marianna have you seen the film again
Two hours and forty minutes long for nostalgia and easter eggs. Not sure I'll rush to the theater to see this one.
To be fair, it is much more than that. The acting is absolutely fantastic and the characters are interesting. I would say the two lead performances are worth the price of admission alone
I'm with Orter on this one
I love Margo Robbie
As someone, like Tarantino, who's seen so much material on this cult and these murders, I liked that we only brush up against them. However I see your point.
Yea but... you could say the same thing about WWII and the Nazis, and yet "Inglourious Basterds" is a damn masterpiece.
I like your video. Good points. You express them well.
Sorry for my English. But I really need to say this
The story is in deed about the assasination of Sharon. Also about Rick Dalton, how he feels that his carrer is gonna end. And finally he achieves what at the begging thought imposible.
You need to know what happened to sharon to understand the real plot. Every scene I was waiting and waiting. I felt anxious. The final scene. Everyone was prepared for the moment that Sharon would died and no. It didnt happened. And thats what the movie is about.
I consider it a Justice story. Allot of People say Margot's scenes didn't have any relevance. It did. It showed how beautiful life is, how happy she was to be an actress. She might've have issues in Real life. But Tarantino wanted to show what she was stold.
Charles manson stealed, rob, "arrebató" (spanish word) Sharon's life.
What Tarantino did was to give Justice to Sharon. A tribute you can Call it. He killed the members of charles manson's family. He knew we we're expecting her death. And used it to give it a twist. Rick Dalton met Sharon and his husband at the end and he completed his character arc.
He did have a story. Sharon's scenes did have a porpouse. Rick Dalton did start at a good place, then have doubts, cried, have a very big breakdown, took a decision, accepted his fate and Who he becamed, and finally got what he wanted from the beggining. That is a character arc! A very complete one actually. I wish the movie lasted 4 hours to see more of it! And of Sharon's happiness.
Cliff's haves a bad past. He haves problems at work. He is a true friend. His character arc isnt so developed. And I think that a 4 hour long Once upon a time would've solve that problem.
Sorry for the bible and the English. But I really loved this movie. And as any kind of art. There is a personal interpretation. And there is the artist goal. Its fine to think that all the Manson conflict isin't present in the movie. But it is. And its the whole!
Good review still. But that was my opinión. Watched more times. Ive seen it on spanish and English. Thought I understand Tarantino's view since the first watch. I really felt allot of things at the second run. Can't wait for the extended versión
Loved the film & the creativity but it desperately needed a little editing & a few wardrobe choices. Leonardo, over & over forgetting his non-sensical lines with no background bar patron chatter or atmosphere, like have the bar owners daughter actually come down & play the dam fiddle, anything to make it a little more interesting as this scene dragged on forever. Why were we first to leave the Playboy mansion just as it was getting fun ? Following Margo, wondering around aimlessly, like she was lost, in knee high white boots & a long sleeve black sweater, while on the strip, mid-day, bright sunshine, summer hot, no wonder she lost the boots once inside the theatre. Leonardo sweating profusely in his winter apparel, dyed Custer leather jacket & this heavy purple corduroy pull over sweat-shirt, like the wardrobe department was playing a joke on him. Why all this bravado about how we turned the strip into 1969, L.A with no CGI., then suddenly mix in all this CGI vintage action film footage in Italy or when Leonardo, not even close to looking realistic, played Steve McQueen, in the Great Escape & finally streamline, lengthen the fantastic song choices are just a few obvious suggestions. Quentin edited 4 hours of film down to 2 hours & 40 minutes, one only wonders what was left on the cutting room floor as Margo never got in the pool at the mansion per the trailer? Simply not as polished as the movie trailer which was a fantastic, beautifully orchestrated mix of cinematography & song, but still overall an absolutely awesome movie ! I would love to see the 4 hour version with extended musical scenes !!
Tarantino is my all time favorite director and I loved this movie (especially after I was severely disappointed by The Hateful Eight). But yeah, I can see how not everyone is going to like this one, even diehard QT fans.
Aww bummer about "The Hateful Eight"! It's become part of my holiday season movie rotation haha
I was really looking forward to talking with you about this movie.... but.... but.... we have the exact same take! Like I've been saying the same things you've been saying but with different words. Well, that's okay, we both got great minds. Hope you're doing well, miss ya.
Great review, I personally loved the movie but understand where you're coming from. To be honest I think I enjoyed this more than hateful 8. 8 was unfortunately a let down for me.
TBH a critical view of the books you review speaks to how well Quentin's filmography connects with your taste. I was looking forward to seeing your thoughts on this movie. I wonder why we have to elevate or take down a film within the fan community just because the individual work lands or doesn't land universally. Also, polygon had a great article about Horror Melodrama & Porn belong in the same genre. The visceral reaction in QT's filmography makes the point better that polygon. I wonder if he as taken to long to release film 9. A24 has pushed the discussion & taken the necessary risks in his absence.
May your creative reservoir be in the perpetual path of the deluge!
The last 10 minutes of this movie 🐕so good
But yeah u can feel the length of this movie 🎬
Yeah. I thought it was going to end on two separate occasions only to think "Wow it's still going!"
I actually liked that the Manson family was used as something that was happening in the background but not in the forefront of the movie. I like that this movie seemed to take after death proof and Jackie Brown more than the other movies. It was much more human I think in a way it couldn't have been if it were about the Manson murders.
While I respect your opinions, I do think that complaining about Tate being under utilized as a complex character is a bit hypocritical when you say Bastards is your favourite film. Churchill, Hitler, and Gerbles are all ridiculously under utlized in that film and none of them are complex characters (they're idealized versions of what they represent just like Tate). I will say it's unfortunate that there are no great female characters in the movie and that is a downside.
I'll also say that I felt the end was not jaring (or at least I enjoyed it's odd tone). It reminded me of documentries if historical events or biogrophies. And the Manson family was focused on for a lot of the movie just in the background.
One more thing I think comparing the ending of Bastards to Hollywood is good but the scale of the change is important to think about. In Bastards the idea was to end the war early and kill the big four (it was about revenge for the war and holocaust) but it wasn't about stopping those things from happening. It seems when Tarantino wrote Hollywood it was about how to stop the murder. And in a way this is a reflection of how once upon a time in the west ends too. In the same way that we don't get a happily ever after in West we don't get total brutal revenge in once upon a time in Hollywood.
That lipstick looks really good on you.
I enjoyed the movie, the recreation of the sixties, most of the characters were easy to watch, except for Al Pacino, they could have cut him out, the negative aspects for me were the depiction of the hippies as dirty bums, that wasn’t necessary and of course the unnecessary ‘fun’ violence, which Tarantino loves so much makes me think that if he didn’t turn out to be a great movie director he could’ve just as easily become a violent thug
Just now realized that Mariana looks like Victoria Chase from Life is Strange. No offense.
Saw it twice so good
My thoughts exactly.
If he didn't really want to bother with that murder story then why put it in the movie
I like your show,you seem so nice so I subscribed!!!
Thank you! Welcome to my channel :)
This movie needed nothing more than it is other than a history of the reality at the end. It was perfect without that.
Although not much happens, this movie is definitely happening!
😌🤗🌻✌️
I enjoyed it overall, despite it not being perfect. Seen it twice, & look forward to owning it to my Tarantino collection. Plus Let's ALL give a round of applause for Cliffs Pitbull for helping save the night from a psycho massacre!
CHOMP!!!😌😂🐕
The brotherly love from Rick & Cliff, the 1969 backdrop, the SOUNDTRACK!! I've been listening to the soundtrack without end. Margaret Qualley is SUPER cute, even though she's in it briefly. Just GREAT fun!🤗
"Bless you for returning our pussycat back to us. We LOVE pussy!"
Cliff: "Yes we do!"
😂😂😂😂
A slice of life/day in the life of these characters completely worked for me. But I hated the ending.
Omg, girls who love Tarantino are real!
My suggestion is to go watch it again. I felt somewhat similar the first time but then figured it all and when I watched it again, it was totally different; A masterpiece. Actually going for the third time in few days and can’t wait. Go watch it again and you will get something more out of it. Cheers.
I'm glad you ended up loving it! There are plenty of other movies to watch for me at the moment though, maybe I'll catch it again when it's streaming or something if I'm in the mood.
I have watched the movie 3X, first pass I was confused because yeah, it was like Inherent Vice in the sense that.."it's NOT a story", it a dip into people lives then out again...then I made up a twist cause I was so confused as to why the film was even made int he first place then...., for a second I thought the Manson murders were going to happen as history wrote and Leo's character was supposed to be a "actor who couldn't catch a break" and how his acceptance into the Tate house ( and a future career) was an example ion his shit luck and that little did I know that Rick Dalton was a looked over victim of the murder's....yes I made that up to try and make sense of it!, I am curious to what the changing of punchline's of history is ever FOR?. The ended was like NAKED GUN horror comedy?, 3rd time I watched I thought maybe its a troll movie (like The Last Jedi) where things are set up, then the director takes the logical ending and flips it on its head. example : today white macho men are vilified , so in the movie, PITT, the PERFECT Marlboro Man is a good dude who turns down the sexual advances of the hitchhiker and is a great buddy to his friend"....honestly I am just confused!
I had waited so long to see this. The trailer is awesome. About 10 minutes in however, this creeping disappointment started slowly and built and built. I do not think I have ever in my entire life of movie viewing (and I go a lot) felt so flat, so deflated, so underwhelmed, so god forgive me..bored, on leaving a movie theatre. I had the same sort of feeling one gets after a Health and safety lecture at work. You know you should take it all in, but you just pray for it to end. And when the lecturer says 'Any questions? and your brain searches for something, anything to fill the space but no....I actually can't really review this because there are no adjectives to explain what I felt at the end. There's probably a German word for it. They always manage to condense feelings into one ridiculously long word. Mutterseelenallein? Weltschmerz? All of the above?
i feel kinda similar, also if i did not wait to see that movie, i really hate it. Without DIcaprio Pitt etc,- and QT.
this movie would be a bomb at box office, or nobody would even care..
It is overrated trash nobody needs!!
I felt the same exact way with the inclusion of the Manson family. It should have just been a random cult inspired by the Manson family if they were going to be more of an afterthought
I absolutely loved this film and Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are two of my favorite Tarantino characters so I didn't need much of a story. I'm definitely picking this up on blu ray. But yeah I agree that they could've used a fictional Mason Family and it wasn't necessary to have Sharon Tate in this movie. But I think the point of her and Polanski is to imply at the end that Rick will become friends with them and possibly star in some better films with Polanski.
I mean, Dalton did say he was a pool party away from being in a Polanski film...
I guess, it just was a different kind of pool party haha
@@ImpressionBlend Lmao!
good review
Thanks!
I'm a movie reviewer as well, and I loved it. I put it easily in the Top 5 of his movies, at least at number 3. I would not have changed a single thing in the movie. My review is at my site.
I feel that this reviewer is conflating 'not having a plot' with the movie not being about anything, and that simply isn't true. So, I guess in that sense she really didn't get the movie. Plain and simple, the movie is about the struggle of a ceratin type of B level actors in the industry. You know, those that maybe find some success early on but don't go on to take the next step. This is illustrated by the characters of DiCaprio and Pitt. Their fall is juxtaposed with Tate's seemingly up and coming career. Their cynicism is contrasted with Robbie's optimism when playing Tate.
To complain about how Robbie was underused is really missing the point. Just like he is giving tribute to all the B level actors he loved and grew up watching, Tarantino is doing the same with Tate. We see her dancing, driving downtown to pick up a book, and going to the theater to watch her own movie. In fact, it's the real Sharon Tate that is shown in the cinema. He doesn't involve her in some distasteful way in the plot. No, he gives us a simple slice of her life. He wants you to think of this Sharon Tate from now on. She was much more than just a victim, she had dreams and was on her way to fully living them. For fuck's sake, she was only 26 years old. I don't know how you can miss this. As a reviewer, miss, you have much to improve on.
Did I say the movie is about nothing? No, I didn't. But from your words, your assumption is that if I accept your interpretation then I'm magically going to see this as a masterpiece, which is just not how things work. I enjoyed the movie for what it was (as I've stated multiple times), and there are a few different ways to look at it, multiple ideas to pick up on, but I found it lacking - people enjoy different things, and I find this film to be one of Tarantino's weaker works. Not that it sucks. Not that it's about nothing. But it's not at the top of my list.
As for Tate - I once again, get it. That doesn't mean I have to like it. Romanticizing a real person and boiling her down to your typical "Hollywood dream" is not my cup of tea, particularly when that person was more complex and interesting and the actress playing her could have shown that, if she was given the chance. And YES, she was much more than a victim. Just like she was much more than a rising star. The point is, there was MORE to her than was shown. Which is exactly what I said in my review, so I'm not sure why you keep saying I missed something. We don't have to agree, and I'm happy you loved the movie (I wish I did, truly), but I find it interesting that people who say I need to improve as a reviewer are people who simply don't have the same opinion.
Why not Manson? Because that would be complete copy of Inglorious Basterds. QT is better than repeating himself..
OK, "complete copy" doesn't apply here at all, even is the ending had a similar vibe.
Is the film set over the course of one day? Those are my favourite kinds of stories.
It's set over the course of two days (and the finale takes place on a different day) but it definitely feels like a day in the life. I think you will like it
I loved this movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My favorite movie of 2019!!! But, I also loved JoJo Rabbit! It was a good movie if, you around during the 1960s. I doubt you were, you look much younger, a good thing, you are beautiful. But, the character girls like "Pussycat" were everywhere. Sex was much more free and love more open. Once, I went five days as a teenager in the 1960s and was with 5 different girls, one for each day. This was how it was back then. Not all the killer diseases of today. People were much more close than today with all the phone or video watchers. One didn't really watch Porn like today, you lived it with another person. You would meet and have sex on the same day often. I miss those days.