Once Upon a Time in Hollywood reviews

[Sabin]

Saw it again.

I don’t know if this is the worst edited film of Tarantino’s career (some scenes have a lovely pace) but as a whole it never quite finds a rhythm. I don’t think it ever figures out how to jump between the three stories. It ends up feeling arbitrary, jarring, and even small. It’s certainly overlong. But those problems (and an overall messiness) almost become part of its character. For those who love it, it’s because it’s something you can get lost in. I don’t think I’ll ever love it but knowing where it’s going I found the getting there more enjoyable.

Pitt seems to be getting singled out the most but DiCaprio really is quite good here.

[Reza]

There is a scene in the film where Pacino is watching DiCaprio's film on the big screen at his own house. The lady sitting next to him is his wife (Brenda Vaccaro). A very brief scene.

[CalWilliam]

Aside from the fact that I loved it, has anyone noticed Brenda Vaccaro as Pacino’s wife? She’s credited and I don’t remember her at all in the film.

[Precious Doll]

It would be such a pity if Pitt is relegated by the studio to the supporting slot. The role is clearly a co-lead. Wishful thinking but it would be nice if DiCaprio and/or Tarantino insist that Pitt be placed as lead in the Oscar race.

It would just be another case of category fraud that the Academy is happy to do nothing about...

As for the film (don't read any further of my post if you haven't seen the film SPOILERS)......






Despite the usual Tarantino indulgences I really enjoyed the film - certainly being set in Hollywood during the late 1960's helps.

I'm not a Tarantino fan by any means. But I love the fact that over the years Tarantino has introduced young filmgoers to an array of bygone cinema some of which may well have been forgotten if not for him. But all those Tarantino wannabe's (like Guy Ritchie) that emerged in the 1990's were a real test of my endurance of sitting through so much junk but thats now all over, thanks heavens.

I was worried going into this thinking Tarantino was going to go a particular way with the ending and I'm very thankful that he took a different route which I viewed with such a sense of relief.

Pitt & DiCaprio are both at the are at the top of the game here, particularly Pitt who is the epitome of cool throughout the whole film. The rest of the cast though have very little to work with, which is fair enough as the film is at its heart a representation of one era coming to an end and the beginning of another which is in a sense the history and destiny of the two lead protagonists and the actual murders in Hollywood 1968.

I was too young to remember the murders but I do remember in the very early 1970's reading a detailed newspaper article about them and my mother saying to me 'You shouldn't read that, it was terrible' - though oddly my parents never censored what I could read or watch but at the film TV in Australia itself was very 'risqué' in Australia so I suspect they just shrugged it off like most younger adults of that era.

I can see why Pitt's dog Brandy won the 'Palm Dog' as Cannes - she certainly plays a every important and effective role in the film.

[Reza]

It would be such a pity if Pitt is relegated by the studio to the supporting slot. The role is clearly a co-lead. Wishful thinking but it would be nice if DiCaprio and/or Tarantino insist that Pitt be placed as lead in the Oscar race.

[Sabin]

dws1982 wrote
I will say that despite my mixed/negative impression on Friday, I find myself thinking about it a good bit, and mainly thinking about the things I liked, or reconsidering things I didn't like. Unlike The Hateful Eight and Django Unchained, for example, which I don't think I've really thought about since walking out of the theater.

That's largely how I felt. I have a hunch Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is better thought of than experienced. Or perhaps better watched for a second time than a first.

I found the act of watching the film somewhat tedious at first, especially whenever it jumped to Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate. There's a scene that a friend of mine considers one of QT's best: when Sharon watches herself in the Dean Martin film on-screen. I couldn't help but feel as though I would care so much more if I was watching a character. Slowly though I found more to enjoy about it as it went along. It's one of QT's more thoughtful films. It's about not simply middle-age but about the threat of change, and youth encroaching upon the old (which certainly has new meaning today). It also has some fun things to say about movie stardom. Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) is a movie star but he doesn't act much like a movie star. He's weak, self-pitying, and doesn't understand the world around him. Cliff Booth (Pitt) is a washed-up stunt man who acts like a movie star in every aspect of his life. But it's all pretty empty, it hides secrets, he's on borrowed time, and he knows it. The contrast between the two is fun. Without spoiling anything, there is a sadness to the ending as if QT wants us to enjoy the ending while also reflecting on the fact that it's just a movie. It feels like a career mic drop.

But in the service of what? It doesn't really add up to anything satisfying on a narrative level. More on a reflective one.

I get that it's a hit but this is a movie for Film Twitter. It's a "modest" 2 hour 39 minute film $100 mil Leonardo DiCaprio/Brad Pitt/Margot Robbie film shot on 70mm. I mostly felt like I was watching a curio.

I could work up the energy to discuss the ending but I don't feel like it. Is this an anti-counter culture film? I understand that we're talking about the Manson Family in this film but... they don't really represent the Manson Family. They represent youth and change.

[dws1982]

I will say that despite my mixed/negative impression on Friday, I find myself thinking about it a good bit, and mainly thinking about the things I liked, or reconsidering things I didn't like. Unlike The Hateful Eight and Django Unchained, for example, which I don't think I've really thought about since walking out of the theater.

[dws1982]

So Sony is trying to get publications to remove spoilers from their published reviews and articles on this. Alissa Wilkinson at Vox has tweeted that she was asked to remove the spoilers from her review, despite the fact that she gave a spoiler warning at the heading of the article, and then in the body of the article as well. A few other reviews have tweeted that they too have been asked to edit published reviews, down to removing specific sentences.

I understand wanting to keep a movie unspoiled in general, especially in the run up to its release, but once the movie has screened at a major festival, and especially once it's in wide release on 3000+ screens, it's ridiculous to try to control the discourse to that degree.

--------

I saw it this morning. I would say that in most cases, the responses are going to mirror your feelings about Tarantino. Can't see this winning over many new converts, although I think most Tarantino fans will like it--however I could see some finding it too slow and plotless. The first two hours and fifteen minutes are not about much other than how much Quentin Tarantino knows about movies, and then it turns into a bloodbath in the last twenty minutes. It has some really good scenes--but my God, this movie is way too long--but to me it ultimately doesn't add up to much. To me the saving grace is Brad Pitt. I'm not necessarily predicting it to happen, but I could see--if the remainder of the year doesn't yield a clear frontrunner--Pitt becoming the favorite for Best Supporting Actor on career points and on generally being a lot of fun to watch. (I don't think Supporting Actor would be the correct placement for Pitt, but I do think Sony will probably push DiCaprio in Lead and Pitt in Support.) DiCaprio is good too, but to me it's a less interesting performance than Pitt's. Margot Robbie really has nothing to do, but she looks the part, and in career terms this is probably a good step.

AND
SPOILER (although I'm going to be vague)

B
E
L
O
W

I'm not sure why it's such a priority to keep this spoiler-free in the first place? If you've seen Tarantino films, especially his three before this, there's nothing at all surprising about the ending.

[Precious Doll]

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/revie ... 19-1212805

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/m ... aprio-pitt

[Mister Tee]

https://variety.com/2019/film/reviews/c ... 203222012/

https://www.screendaily.com/reviews/onc ... 76.article

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/21/movi ... ywood.html