In an interview with Paul Thomas Anderson, Tarantino said that he wrote Sharon Tate to not be a Tarantino character, and wanted to respect who she really was as a real person, representing normality, not putting her into a plot, because that was what was robbed from her. Just living her life. She has become an actress who has been consigned to history completely and utterly by her tragic death. He wanted people to think about her differently and save her from her tombstone. I personally think that Tarantino's handling of Tate and Robbie's spectacular performance was brilliant, and shows some real maturity and growth on Tarantino's part.
I agree, and I almost feel if Tarintino had put his type of dialogue in her mouth people would be saying he was being disrespectful to her memory for turning her into a Tarintino character rather than the real person.
ANN TUMBLR She is very intelligent and articulate however, she seems a little too partial. She seems bias against QT, Leonardo and Pitt. Like she doesn’t want to like their work, no matter the offering.
Why is she so underrated? She’s excellent at what she does! I hope the future is bright for you!! She’s beautiful and smart... Have you ever considered making a film?
It's refreshing too that she isn't another tedious basement dweller with the standard issue annoying voice. But I agree she speaks about film very well
Personnaly I really like Brad Pitt for making good career choices. He has been in a lot of outstanding movies and is always doing a good job. At worst he doesn't ruin a character. Yes he was great in The tree of life but what about Babel? I found him incredibly touching in this film!
Right let's teach a whole new generation that Manson was some loser who didn't do much. He didn't kill a couple and ordered the murder of Tate etc. Great message
One of the best movies of the decade. The atmosphere in this movie is on another level. I saw it three times, and every time is better. And no, Tarantino is way better writer then director.
Robert Lipski OMG thank you! So many people have said he is a better director than writer which to me is preposterous. He is able to direct the way he does and the actors can glean so much from or for their performances because of what is on the written page.
I love Cliff Booth. Brad Pitt has never been cooler. For me 1969, actually 1967, was the beginning of the Second Golden Age of Hollywood. The time when the studio system broke down and directors did what they wanted. You wouldn't have The French Connection or Bonnie and Clyde, or Deliverance (and many others) a few years before.
@flmvdvsrg The problem is not just literal (he released two, roughly two hour films) but that the singular film will feel like a fairly different experience - sitting through the pacing of 4 hours verus 2 hours; the iconic fight scene remaining in colour rather than switching to B&W; the animated scene reaching Manga levels of peak violence; and discovering new information at the same time as The Bride rather than before her, halfway through. In reality, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Whole Bloody Affair are three different movies and it's better to trust the tale rather than the teller.
illTANK idk dude, his writing style is certainly original and back in his 90s movies it seemed pretty cool but it’s grown a little played out and really doesn’t work sometimes, Death Proof for example and some of hateful eight. It might also be the fact that it’s been copied so often and done poorly but he’s definitely somewhat overrated as a writer sometimes
@@cultmoss4482 he's a great writer because his dialogue is realistic and fun. other writers get praised for complexity and how well they hide exposition, but QT has a simplicity to his work that makes it easy for anyone to understand whats going on and have a much more fun time. it's like you are hanging out with the characters he created whereas with most other writers you would be begging them to move onto the next big plot point. my favorite quality of his is he isn't a "type" writer.
@@TankLCDx I think she's talking about the narrative aspect, not the dialogue. I agree with her in that sense. His stories are usually interesting because of how he narrates them, and not so much for the story itself. To me, at least.
@@letmonge good point, but i dont think one negates the other. i feel like he sets his films up on a smaller scale so you are spending more time with characters and not thinking about whats taking place. the fact that he can literally take any plot and make it interesting is great in and of itself for me. i dont see me sitting in front of a screen for half of tarantinos movies if they were done by anybody else, which might work to your point. sorry if my interpretation is a lil bias, idk if im just being a fanboy at this point lol
I would recommend that you watch Brad Pitt in Assassination of Jesse James. It is a masterpiece with great performances from Pitt and Casey Affleck, along with a stunning Deakins cinematography.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is ultimately defies expectations. There is really no plot, it's a series of interconnected skits. It's also kind of a hang out film. Tarantino wants you to chill back and enjoy the scenery, thus why the pace is so tedious, there is no quest for revenge or big score, it's a nostalgia fix. It's not Tarantino's greatest film but it's an incredible achievement. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
So happy to have discovered this channel. Very, very intelligent … I don’t always agree … IMHO … “Once upon Time” was a masterpiece….. as brilliant as you are, I don’t know how you can be more enthusiastic about the Over-acting, Scene-Chewing Nicolas Cage, and be so down on so many other accomplishments actors. Nonetheless, You❤ are enlightened, and your videos are, for me, required insightful viewing.
Great film. I would love to see an extended version with more "Manson" scenes (The actor said that they filmed more of them) though. I don't know about all of you, but I could sit through a Tarantino film that is about three hours long. At the same time though, I also wish there were more "Bruce Lee" scenes (even just a couple more) but that is okay. The film is great how it turned out, but it seems like he did leave a lot of stuff out. Hopefully there is an extended edition. As much as I loved it (I give it an 8.5 out of 10) the editing seemed rushed.
I loved the film. Honestly it's in my top 5 favorite films of all time. I could see why people would think Margot Robbie was wasted. I don't feel that way though. Now I am biased a bit I love QT. But the way I see it is everyone sees Tate as a tragic figure because of what happened. Rightly so. I believe QT wants to depict who Tate was. A young beautiful full of life woman. This plays into the ending we love seeing the Manson Family getting what they deserved. In real life Tate unfortunately is gone. But this film like you said creates happiness. Overall I loved the film so much. I am a history buff so the whole 1969 feel had me invested. The classic cars, the amazing music, the feel of California, etc. I love when Cliff Booth just rides his car and we see the city. I also loved the ending and the relationship between Dalton and Booth.
If you thought Margot Robbie was wasted what about Al Pacino he was totally wasted he should had been given more meat with his character.I like Brad Character very suspenseful I thought his character was going to get killed off when he went to Spahn Ranch.
I think Margo’s character was meant to drive home her innocence to contrast the tragedy that is/was awaiting her. I found myself thinking repeatedly that she didn’t deserve the violence that she suffered. That she should have been free to just enjoy her life. So, in that for me she represented the innocence of the time, more symbol than character.
Maybe my favorite Tarantino movie. A movie that I find more realistic and not so heavy with dialogue and style, even though it has both. Another thing that I can practically guarantee you, and this is a Tarantino speciality, it that it gets even better the 2nd time around and is totally re watchable for a fairly long movie. To do something with film that is fresh, is probably the hardest thing to accomplish, even more so than being just a brilliant movie. Loved it, had a subtlety to it that I really dug, and then it also gives you those hit you over the head moments.
I feel the same way about Babylon. I didn’t really like it the first time I watched it, but 8 months later I’m wanting to watch it again for reasons unknown.
Love the way you articulate film. Can't wait to hear what you think of this one. I liked it, but didn't love. It had some excellent scenes throughout though.
couldn't agree more with your assessment of DiCaprio. I've never been a fan of his, and you've articulated why very well. However, his two performances for Tarantino have been very compelling and enjoyable.
Excellent review. Your criticism of the shallow presentation of Sharon Tate is a relatively common one and I have seen very few who have complimented this choice. But Tarantino can give a character one line and with it an encyclopedic knowledge of who they are ("garcon means boy"). He also wanted this movie to be a "tribute" to Tate, so one would have to at least consider that if he has not gone insane, then this was not accidental. For example, many of the complaints about it say that we didn't get to know Sharon, and you specifically called it a "waste". But both of those things apply to the real Sharon Tate, who was cut down so brutally at the age of 25. It was a waste. And we didn't get to know her. Given Tarantino's actual IQ and writing IQ, and the fact that she "lives" in this movie, it's too much of a coincidence to not have been intentional.
I like your mention of ("garcon means boy") line in Pulb Fiction and how Tarantino could make a character out of a tiny bit of a scene. That's called a great attention to details. re Sharo Tate depiction in the movie, Tarantino said exactly what you've just said in interview with director Paul Thomas Anderson.
MOFOSmackdownTheater I think I can help you find it. It was more of a recorded audio conversation. Here is a link: www.indiewire.com/2019/08/quentin-tarantino-paul-thomas-anderson-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-podcast-1202168301/
Interesting. I went back & watched your initial reaction to Inglourious Basterds because I was curious what your criticisms were. At the time you seemed to love the film and Tarantino himself as a director. I’m just curious what changed. I personally think Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s most masterful film among a career of mostly excellent work. I would definitely be interested to hear a sort of updated re-review of Inglourious Basterds, just to see if maybe I’m missing something. I really enjoy your vids by the way. They’re always very thoughtful and thought provoking. I’m definitely not trying to be confrontational at all, just genuinely interested. ✌️
Makes me wonder if Shutter Island would be even better with a different actor. Never really thought about it since I love the movie so much just as it is. I actually think Mark Ruffalo was just as important as Leo & is the reason I can rewatch it so many times. You get the feeling that those 2 really are close partners with a history.
It sucks in fact the whole movie sucks. When I saw the trailer before the feature presentation of Wayne's World 2 on Vhs tape I new the actual movie was going to be awful.
A very young Dicaprio as Arnie in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is not only one of the worst acting performances I've seen in a movie but also one of the most annoying. He tries to be funny but hes just not.
very intelligent and well-thought-out review. I'm a huge hater of Tarantino movies as I find them to be hackjobs of older movies that he's seen. That said, I LOVED "Death Proof," and I absolutely LOVED "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood." I would go even further to say that Once Upon A Time is my favorite movie of 2019 thus far. I loved the way he captured this time period, and the two main characters were extremely exciting to see everytime they appeared on screen. Such an epic movie, and I can't believe this was Tarantino's work. I'll always give him a chance (even though I hate most of his movies)
they're not hackjobs of other movies, he's just influenced by alot of movies he's seen like every director is. even to be original you have to be influenced by something. also deathproof is his worst movie
@@jmckeev765 dude, it's one thing to be influenced by other movies...but he literally takes things out of other movies (direct songs and movie props) and inserts them directly into his movies. That's not being "influenced." That's a 100% hackjob from another movie. For example, the Iron Duck in Death Proof was taken directly from "Convoy." The Shaw Brother intro in some of his movies is the SAME intro from the Shaw Brothers. The music, names, even the same actors, were taken directly from other movies and put directly into his movies. That's not "being influenced." That's directly using other material from other movies.
I think maybe the issue you have with this film and maybe other reviewers is that he trades his usual Tarantino heady, philosophical dialogue between characters for visuals. In most of his films it's the banter between the actors that becomes the narrative, or the basis for a storyline. Instead we see the fading glory of the city, the rise of violence in movies and in a sense a loss of innocence. I disagree about the Margo Robbie portrayal of Sharon Tate. Her presence in the movie is more about symbolism than a literal presentation or a biopic of her. Instead she represents an idealized personification of beauty and perfection. It plays like a fable or a fantasized version of a memory. To me there's this theme of an era fading being exchanged for another one.
I see Leo & Brad like this: Professional actors putting in a solid day’s work. Nothing wrong with admiring an actor for just doing his job well even if you are constantly reminded that it’s Brad & Leo.
Wow. Such an insightful analysis. I think you’re quite right about the post-Jackie Brown films, but I noticed myself finding reasons to forgive him each time simply because I found the films to be campy and entertaining. For Kill Bill, I remember thinking, “well, this is his cross-genre love letter to films that inspired him” expecting he would go back to relative seriousness after. He didn’t.
I really thought this movie was crap, just a nostalgia piece, like something teenagers would put together: Batman vs. the Manson family. Lancer as a tv show was average at best but because QT thought it was good we should like it to.
The idea of insulating and compartmentalizing roles in filmmaking to where writers are writers and directors are directors tended to result in a stagnation in variety and creativity. By the time Tarantino, Richard Linklater and Kevin Smith came along many film critics noticed how film schools produced people who read all the same textbooks about how to write a film, same 3-act structures beat-for-beat hundreds of times over. Some filmmakers, they get to a point where they constitute every aspect of what they create. As with the Coens and other auteurs, it is beside the point after calling them auteurs to say their career would've been better or worse if they just picked a lane and stayed with it. It's disconcerting hearing anyone at this point talking about Tarantino as separate from his writing. Only Tarantino makes Tarantino films, for better and/or for worse.
My biggest gripe is how he white knights on behalf of other racial or religious groups, takes me right out of the film. Yet, Jackie Brown is his best film.
I haven't seen the movie but if had to guess Tarantino doesn't see it as white knighting but what feel right to him. I can relate up to point if can help or do what is right. Shouldn't I?
It's a 90 minute movie at best that QT turns into a self-indulgent yawner. It's sad. He's been chasing "Reservoir Dogs" his whole career and hasn't come close to it ever. Fast forward through all the Sharon Tate crap and it's an enjoyable movie.
This film is a masterpiece. Such a great feeling walking out of this movie... I just wish we had a movie with this much love of pure cinema and not Disney fast food trash, reboots, remakes and sequels weekly.
Thanks for discussing this. I've caught "Once Upon a Time ..." a few times on satellite television. I enjoy it. For me, the film picked up steam about an hour in, when Leonardo DiCaprio is filming the TV Western and goes on that self-loathing rant in his trailer. I love his use of period music in this. He picks great tunes and avoids the obvious tracks that Hollywood loves to use for period pieces set in the late '60s. I like the dialogue, too. It works for me. Shawn R., Mo-Mutt Music
Hi Maggie. I love seeing you again. Now, I disagree with Margot Robbie’s character complains (which is not only yours). ***SPOILERS*** I don’t think this movie is about “Leo & Brad” (as many describe it). Those two go separate ways for a big portion of the movie. From my point of view this movie is about 3 different stories: Rick Dalton’s, Cliff Booth’s and Sharon Tate’s. The first story is about a middle age actor’s struggling to survive in a transitioning Hollywood, and a beautiful rendition to “western” and “spaghetti western”. The second story is an exploration into a “tough guy” stuntman, an amazing visual time-travel to the 60s LA streets, to the “Americana” culture and a mystery story involving the Manson Family. The third story is shown from the perspective of an observer. It’s not an exploration into Sharon Tate’s personal life and problems. It’s not study of character. Tarantino decided instead to make her character “minimalist”: graceful, warm-hearted, innocent, Tarantino places the camera behind her while she takes us wherever her impulses decide to make her go: to the middle of a dancing floor at The Playboy Mansion, crossing the street to watch a movie theater posters, to a bookstore, to the theater again to see herself in awe listening to people reaction to her movie. All those scenes involve little dialogue but a lot of walking. She’s like our host and guide through the film. Her character is shaped not so much on what she says but on what she does, and her constant smile and optimism. She moves freely without any restraints or regrets, wherever she wants. That’s why at the end of the movie I felt a little relief on knowing that she was safe and nothing bad happened to her.
I'm reading the novelization of this film right now because I want to see if it's better to read a Tarantino film than it is to watch it. I've no plans to see the movie because I swore I'd never watch a Tarantino film again after seeing the last half of Inglorious Bastards on TV.
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. What makes me love this movie so much, is that it's NOT a sad movie! It's a feel good movie to watch when your feeling down on your luck. I ate nachos & popcorn & drank my Dr. Pepper & felt joy watching it. It didn't bring me an ounce of sadness😊 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!🤗 Your TOTALLY gonna like this comment. I can feel it! 😂😂😂😂
Tarantino is not a great writer? Lady, you've got it all wrong. It's fact it's the opposite of what you said. He is a great writer and a good director.
Good review. I wonder how you might feel after seeing it again. Sharon Tate is more of a spirit that inhabits this movie, but she has significant parallels with Rick Dalton’s development. The pay off at the end is not just that Sharon lives and that her baby is born, but that Rick is born as a real person and not just a self-absorbed TV actor. Or at least he’s busy being born, as Dylan might say. And yes, this is Tarantino reflecting on his own life, getting married and having a baby. I think he’s actually saying that we can’t change the past, but we can change the future by changing ourselves. It’s more about where Hollywood and culture are going. It’s inly his 9th movie. We’ll see if they let him make a 10th.
I really love this review. I completely agree with your feelings of Brad and Leonardo. They have potential, but never knocked me out. Brad is better. Tate was nothing in the picture, but it was about people around her. I'm a Helter Skelter fanatic and it did veer my expectations. I like that. I was thinking it was going to be this Manson murders thing, but it's completely other. If it was all about Tate, that would be predictable. It's all about outside of it and that is really interesting.
I agree with you, the movie seems like the representation of the life that Tarantino wanted to live, and the nostalgia about the old ways of deaing with cinema. That's why it feels like a very ''personal'' movie but not in the way that you say this is a TRADEMARK Tarantino movie, it doesn't have many of his own touches in it cause he wanted to keep that world untouched i guess. Although i didn't go crazy for it, i enjoyed it, especially the two characters Rick and Cliff and their great relationship. It left me with an urge to rewatch it at some point.
I really liked the ending because Tarantino was showing one way out of the end or the era, which was the Leonardo character following Clint Eastwood's trajectory of going from TV western to spaghetti western success and subsequently branching out. When he meets the neighbors it shows him realizing he could do more.
Tarantino has been a C- director since Pulp Fiction - one of my top tenners. His success reflects the fact that most his viewers would prefer to have a dessert 3x a day, had it not been for the consequences. Many might still do.
Only just catching up with this review and have to say it’s spot on once again. You always make me consider things I may have missed in your reviews. Incisive, insightful and hugely watchable. Kudos 🙌
4:23. Honestly Ive always kinda thought that too, his early performances especially, titanic and Romeo and Juliet 🤦♂️. But even in performances later on like Shutter Island and low key even in inception he’s not my favourite. He’s just too dramatic and plays the roles too strong I guess. I do like him in the Departed and I also think he deserved his Oscar for the Revenant, he’s definitely a good actor but seems overrated.
I went into this expecting to love it, but I was bored out of my head. The performances were great, the filmmaking was top notch as it always is with Tarantino, but that doesn't make up for the almost complete lack of anything interesting happening. Even the finale seems tacked on, over the top, and out of step with the rest of the film. Will never watch again. As much as I love his early films, the last 3 have not resonated with me at all. Almost every review for this film are very frustrating for me because people basically praise it uncritically as if they are doing what they think they are supposed to do. I just can't imagine people love this movie. As I said there are things that deserve praise, but as for enjoying the story, I just don't get it.
tarantino did was he captured thr essence of 1969 the freewheeling breezy feeling of the time , Brad pitt speeding along with cool music, the sun was in those days hot, the sky had a bright hazy quality to it, no worries seemingly as hollywood was wrapped up in the times of late 1960s. Brad Pitt was a stand up guy in the film and you felt you were watching not an actor but the real guy. i thought it was a wonderful film as i said capturing hollywood perfectly that summer when long hair ruled girls and guys hitchhiking up and down the strip, things like the vietnam war, racism,sexism just was not on the minds of people in 1969 hollywood. so many other things i could say but another time. great video thanks.
Hi Maggie it’s a classic review. I want ask you a question my favourite actors are those who can express every emotions through their eyes and subtle facial expressions which male actor according to u stands out in this criteria
You NAILED it about Dicaprio...He OVERacts in everything...Way too LOUD also...Was waiting for someone to tell the truth about him...This is why he never won any Oscars...Well they gave him a courtesy oscar that he did NOT even deserve
He is self indulgent, all Americans of his generation and later are. Parts of his films are great, but his films as a whole are not that good or long lasting. She's right in that his films are enjoyable in bits and pieces.
You're review is ''KIND OF'' interesting but i like how Quentin Tarantino's historical revisionism kind of makes his movies ending better ,in a movie you don't want to see HISTORICAL facts followed on point because it is a movie not a documentary , i love how he's kind of making fun of bruce lee in this movie ,i consider bruce lee arrogant to...
Have you seen The Basketball Diaries ? Even today I think it's one of DiCaprio's best performances and he was like 16 years old! One of the best portrayals of heroin addiction and I love Jim Carroll.
Totally agree. Pitt and DiCaprio are not character actors, but they are fine in the right ROLES. Ditto Tom Cruise. So I wanted more from both in this, but their eyes convey nothing emotional. Pitt is fun in KALIFORNIA (1993).
Man..this lady is fantastic. Love her in depth critque of cinema. On Brad Pitt..I understand your perspective on him as many have this opinion of his work. I would just point to his work in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford if u don't usually get much emoting from his eyes. In my opinion this is one of the best performances in film history and there is no denying Pitt's close up work as there are numerous shots of nothing but Pitt's eyes only. Powerful, subtle, controlled performance that was worthy of an Oscar.
I think you may have overlooked the point behind how Sharon Tate is portrayed in this film. Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate is supposed to be uneventful. You're watching what it's like for a normal, unassuming, person who's in the middle of her glory days. She's carefree in a throuple, she's naively picking up a hitchhiker, she's dancing while doing laundry, she's going to the movies in the middle of the day and using her newfound B-list celebrity status to save a measly 75 cents on a movie she's in. It's all done as a constant reminder (for viewers aware of her tragedy) that this woman will be murdered in the prime of her life. It's not until the title of the film is shown at the very end, that you get the point of it all: This entire story is Quentin Tarantino's version of a fairy tale. Hence "Once upon a time...". Our gallant heroes are two men in the twilight of their careers who avert the Manson murders and save the damsel before she's in any distress. The rise of movies made by guys like Polanski helped push out shows/movies helmed by guys like Dalton and thrusted him into having to do small TV roles and spaghetti westerns. If not for that, he and an acid-tripping Cliff Booth (with his vicious dog) wouldn't likely be both at Dalton's house that night, nor awake at midnight. We're left to believe that innocent, unassuming, Sharon Tate gets to play out the remainder of her life (and rise to stardom) as she should. The End 🙂
I'm a huge Tarantino fan, and love his nerdism and technically he is quite a master. That said, I think your criticism of his indulgences has high merit. You are wrong about the portrayal of Sharon Tate however. Every "manson" movie has treated her as a victim which is easy. Tarantino just made her a ray of light as someone who was up and coming as a starlet that Hollywood used to embrace, but as the tide was turning in 69, it was a light that was never to be, SO, by giving her a small player part, he was truly sticking to a fairy tale and not real life, as opposed to the fairy tale "real life" portrayal of the two male fictional characters. It's all so complicated. Lol. Tarantino movies always encourage discussion and analysis. Love your point of view and I look forward to all your reviews. ✌❤
@deepfocuslens - there are actors who are aware of the camera. This includes Leo. There are actors who forget the camera. This includes Anthony Hopkins. I met Anthony Hopkins and I did the Elephant Man. He will never forget me.
I didn't enjoy it at all. Everything that made his earlier works like Reservoir Dogs so great are in complete reverse here. The pacing is glacial, there are so many inconsequential filler scenes, the dialogue is not particularly memorable, the stories don't particularly intertwine in any clever way. It's just all incredibly bloated and safe.
Margot Robbie's one-note character is one of the things that left an impression on me. By having her this way, Tarantino let us invest our own ideal into her. In a sense, then, she belonged to no one and all of us. He was absolutely objectifying her, but I think in a way that was meant to memorialize her. I think he felt a real sorrow for her.
The way Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate was marketed (i.e. trailers) was frustrating even before the film's release. Having seen it, and having loved "Inglourious Basterds", I found it very hard to articulate how this particular ending stumped me the way it did. It occurs to me that end-of-an-era narratives are not for all writers; they require a specific skillset. Tarantino is dealing with real people and events but mixing it with fiction. Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" is rooted entirely in fiction in a who-gives-a-shit town but finds a much more realism-based path in [that specific case] how teenagers, families and the community around them operate. So maybe it's the grandeur of Hollywood as a setting that makes things messy and bogs down crucial things like characterization. I'm sorry Tarantino, but I'm more likely to revisit "The Virgin Suicides" on a regular basis.
Yeah. I feel like DiCaprio is a very technical actor. But emotionally he feels kinda blunt. Still tho, as you said. When he's satirical and funny.... He's amazing.
So you say Tarantino isn’t a great writer and you struggle to like Leo and Brad Pitt, two of this generations best actors? You’re entitled to your opinion but I wholeheartedly disagree
I would like to see Tarantino make a lower budget film like he did in the 90s. He could really go down to bare bones and show off his directorial/ writing strengths without having so much grandeur distracting from it.
Can you define what you mean by "a cerebral performer"? Also I went to see the movie without knowing who Sharon Tate was and as such found her character totally redundant since her true history was changed.
11:25 I don't think Tarantino was trying to get the audience to hope for the murder, instead I think he was trying to cause dread of what will happen Sharon. Throughout the whole movie Sharon is presented as happy, friendly, and constantly smiling. Tarantino also has the ominous shadow of the murder hanging over the film with Manson and his family. Then Quentin, rescues the audience with a bloody happy ending
It's part tribute to Hollywood golden age, part buddy movie, part fantasy revenge movie. It's ending (*spoilers) literally answers the question, what if the Manson family went to the wrong house? They would literally get the sh*t beaten out of them by a Hollywood stunt man. In reality Steve McQueen was invited to Tate's house that evening but couldn't attend, so this is not far from what could have happened, but instead Tate had to rely on her hairdresser boyfriend for protection. And we know how well that went. Yes it's a fingers up to feminists, telling them, yes we do still need masculinity.
I wanted so badly to like OUATIH more than I did, but it seemed flawed at the very foundation of its storytelling. I am fully sympathetic to Tarantino’s nostalgia for the Los Angeles of Yore, but when your movie is three honking hours long, some memberberries gotta be put on the chopping block. The climax of a movie should tie together the characters and themes of a movie, and yet the climax of OUATIH did neither. Sharon Tate wasn't even physically present! Rick Dalton’s excursion to Italy served no narrative purpose other than to furnish him with a wife, whose ass-kicking moment could have properly gone to Sharon Tate. Oh, and what function did Chekhov’s LSD cigarette serve? There’s a very beautiful moment in the movie when all the main characters are paralleled in golden hour shots to the strains of “California Dreamin’”. It’s a transcendent moment where the threads come closest to being tied together, so that’s where you should go- Fade to black. Act 3. The Manson Family are on Cielo Drive. Instead, the movie keeps puttering around, losing all its drive.
Great review ive already seen this film 3 times and i think its great and i loved the soundtrack the dialogue and it was a great love letter to hollywood
I think this is a film that gets better with more views. In regards to Margot Robbie character is like a princess, a pour being of light. In many ways I think this film is a fairy tale.
In an interview with Paul Thomas Anderson, Tarantino said that he wrote Sharon Tate to not be a Tarantino character, and wanted to respect who she really was as a real person, representing normality, not putting her into a plot, because that was what was robbed from her.
Just living her life.
She has become an actress who has been consigned to history completely and utterly by her tragic death. He wanted people to think about her differently and save her from her tombstone.
I personally think that Tarantino's handling of Tate and Robbie's spectacular performance was brilliant, and shows some real maturity and growth on Tarantino's part.
I agree, and I almost feel if Tarintino had put his type of dialogue in her mouth people would be saying he was being disrespectful to her memory for turning her into a Tarintino character rather than the real person.
humm wish he could've done the same with Bruce Lee but well..😅
@@eYoWay Exactly
Yes he was super respectful by showing her dirty feet
@@azure5644right??? 😅
Your criticism is so pointed and sharp and well-thought out, and most people on UA-cam who "review" things aren't as cogent and observant as you.
ANN TUMBLR She is very intelligent and articulate however, she seems a little too partial. She seems bias against QT, Leonardo and Pitt. Like she doesn’t want to like their work, no matter the offering.
@@natalydavidsmith3118 yeah it comes off very pretentious tbh haha she makes generalized statements and provides basically 0 evidence to back them up.
Agreed. She is incredibly thoughtful
@@natalydavidsmith3118 "Bias against" is not an expression. You probably meant "biased against". "Bias" is a noun, not an adjective.
i watched the movie 3 times ,and i was extremely entertained
must have been a slow week
"Extremely entertained" is not the lowest bar, but you can barely see "enlightened" from there.
The movie was brilliant … a retelling of Hollywood … with the ending we all have wished for, for decades
My favourite thing was Sergio Corbucci getting the recognition he deserves.
Yeah, as the second best spagetti western director of all times.
And all the posters for The Mercenary (1968).
Why is she so underrated? She’s excellent at what she does! I hope the future is bright for you!! She’s beautiful and smart... Have you ever considered making a film?
Brad Pitt is a great character actor
:D :D :D :D XD
Best reviewer on UA-cam imho. You have a fantastic way of conveying your opinion.
It's refreshing too that she isn't another tedious basement dweller with the standard issue annoying voice. But I agree she speaks about film very well
Personnaly I really like Brad Pitt for making good career choices. He has been in a lot of outstanding movies and is always doing a good job. At worst he doesn't ruin a character. Yes he was great in The tree of life but what about Babel? I found him incredibly touching in this film!
it's easy (or easier) when you get offered the best scripts first
I LOVE Tarantino's "revision of history" emdings--more satisfying than real life.
Right let's teach a whole new generation that Manson was some loser who didn't do much. He didn't kill a couple and ordered the murder of Tate etc. Great message
One of the best movies of the decade. The atmosphere in this movie is on another level. I saw it three times, and every time is better. And no, Tarantino is way better writer then director.
Robert Lipski OMG thank you! So many people have said he is a better director than writer which to me is preposterous. He is able to direct the way he does and the actors can glean so much from or for their performances because of what is on the written page.
I strongly agree with you now.Tarantino should retire just because everything he makes is copying other people's works.
I love it's breezy summary vibes and the nostalgia ✌️
@@Thespeedrapso what's this copied off? Hmmm?
@@HaHaHaa769Bob and Carol, Alice and Ted (1969 )Cactus Flower,Easy Rider(1969),Arizona Raiders(1965),Getting Straight(1970)
I did think the film was a lot of fun and I will buy it on DVD when it comes out
I love Cliff Booth. Brad Pitt has never been cooler. For me 1969, actually 1967, was the beginning of the Second Golden Age of Hollywood. The time when the studio system broke down and directors did what they wanted. You wouldn't have The French Connection or Bonnie and Clyde, or Deliverance (and many others) a few years before.
Pretty sure it's his 9th film
Depends if you count Kill Bill as one film or not. He does.
@flmvdvsrg The problem is not just literal (he released two, roughly two hour films) but that the singular film will feel like a fairly different experience - sitting through the pacing of 4 hours verus 2 hours; the iconic fight scene remaining in colour rather than switching to B&W; the animated scene reaching Manga levels of peak violence; and discovering new information at the same time as The Bride rather than before her, halfway through. In reality, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Whole Bloody Affair are three different movies and it's better to trust the tale rather than the teller.
@flmvdvsrg he went to shit after pulp fiction tbh
The art direction was spot on & really captured the 60's era.
Leo really didn’t come into his prime till the 2010’s. His performances of the decade are far better than those of the 2000’s
he isn't a great writer? talk about an original opinion here. not saying that it's a bad thing or anything, just unexpected
her opinion is stupid as fuck
illTANK idk dude, his writing style is certainly original and back in his 90s movies it seemed pretty cool but it’s grown a little played out and really doesn’t work sometimes, Death Proof for example and some of hateful eight. It might also be the fact that it’s been copied so often and done poorly but he’s definitely somewhat overrated as a writer sometimes
@@cultmoss4482 he's a great writer because his dialogue is realistic and fun. other writers get praised for complexity and how well they hide exposition, but QT has a simplicity to his work that makes it easy for anyone to understand whats going on and have a much more fun time. it's like you are hanging out with the characters he created whereas with most other writers you would be begging them to move onto the next big plot point. my favorite quality of his is he isn't a "type" writer.
@@TankLCDx I think she's talking about the narrative aspect, not the dialogue. I agree with her in that sense. His stories are usually interesting because of how he narrates them, and not so much for the story itself. To me, at least.
@@letmonge good point, but i dont think one negates the other. i feel like he sets his films up on a smaller scale so you are spending more time with characters and not thinking about whats taking place. the fact that he can literally take any plot and make it interesting is great in and of itself for me. i dont see me sitting in front of a screen for half of tarantinos movies if they were done by anybody else, which might work to your point. sorry if my interpretation is a lil bias, idk if im just being a fanboy at this point lol
I would recommend that you watch Brad Pitt in Assassination of Jesse James. It is a masterpiece with great performances from Pitt and Casey Affleck, along with a stunning Deakins cinematography.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is ultimately defies expectations. There is really no plot, it's a series of interconnected skits. It's also kind of a hang out film. Tarantino wants you to chill back and enjoy the scenery, thus why the pace is so tedious, there is no quest for revenge or big score, it's a nostalgia fix. It's not Tarantino's greatest film but it's an incredible achievement. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
So happy to have discovered this channel. Very, very intelligent … I don’t always agree …
IMHO … “Once upon Time” was a masterpiece…..
as brilliant as you are, I don’t know how you can be more enthusiastic about the Over-acting, Scene-Chewing Nicolas Cage, and be so down on so many other accomplishments actors.
Nonetheless, You❤ are enlightened, and your videos are, for me, required insightful viewing.
Great film. I would love to see an extended version with more "Manson" scenes (The actor said that they filmed more of them) though. I don't know about all of you, but I could sit through a Tarantino film that is about three hours long. At the same time though, I also wish there were more "Bruce Lee" scenes (even just a couple more) but that is okay. The film is great how it turned out, but it seems like he did leave a lot of stuff out. Hopefully there is an extended edition. As much as I loved it (I give it an 8.5 out of 10) the editing seemed rushed.
Koka Kola yes, the actually original cut was over 4 hrs long.
I loved the film. Honestly it's in my top 5 favorite films of all time.
I could see why people would think Margot Robbie was wasted. I don't feel that way though. Now I am biased a bit I love QT. But the way I see it is everyone sees Tate as a tragic figure because of what happened. Rightly so. I believe QT wants to depict who Tate was. A young beautiful full of life woman. This plays into the ending we love seeing the Manson Family getting what they deserved. In real life Tate unfortunately is gone. But this film like you said creates happiness.
Overall I loved the film so much. I am a history buff so the whole 1969 feel had me invested. The classic cars, the amazing music, the feel of California, etc. I love when Cliff Booth just rides his car and we see the city. I also loved the ending and the relationship between Dalton and Booth.
@@MusaShinwari Nice low IQ you got there mate.
I love Quick Trip too
If you thought Margot Robbie was wasted what about Al Pacino he was totally wasted he should had been given more meat with his character.I like Brad Character very suspenseful I thought his character was going to get killed off when he went to Spahn Ranch.
I think Margo’s character was meant to drive home her innocence to contrast the tragedy that is/was awaiting her. I found myself thinking repeatedly that she didn’t deserve the violence that she suffered. That she should have been free to just enjoy her life. So, in that for me she represented the innocence of the time, more symbol than character.
Exactly.
Maybe my favorite Tarantino movie. A movie that I find more realistic and not so heavy with dialogue and style, even though it has both. Another thing that I can practically guarantee you, and this is a Tarantino speciality, it that it gets even better the 2nd time around and is totally re watchable for a fairly long movie. To do something with film that is fresh, is probably the hardest thing to accomplish, even more so than being just a brilliant movie. Loved it, had a subtlety to it that I really dug, and then it also gives you those hit you over the head moments.
I feel the same way about Babylon. I didn’t really like it the first time I watched it, but 8 months later I’m wanting to watch it again for reasons unknown.
Love the way you articulate film. Can't wait to hear what you think of this one. I liked it, but didn't love. It had some excellent scenes throughout though.
Your thoughts on the ending were exactly how I felt in the theatre. Such a hopeful ending was sweet but knowing the actual outcome made me so sad.
couldn't agree more with your assessment of DiCaprio. I've never been a fan of his, and you've articulated why very well. However, his two performances for Tarantino have been very compelling and enjoyable.
Excellent review. Your criticism of the shallow presentation of Sharon Tate is a relatively common one and I have seen very few who have complimented this choice. But Tarantino can give a character one line and with it an encyclopedic knowledge of who they are ("garcon means boy"). He also wanted this movie to be a "tribute" to Tate, so one would have to at least consider that if he has not gone insane, then this was not accidental.
For example, many of the complaints about it say that we didn't get to know Sharon, and you specifically called it a "waste". But both of those things apply to the real Sharon Tate, who was cut down so brutally at the age of 25. It was a waste. And we didn't get to know her. Given Tarantino's actual IQ and writing IQ, and the fact that she "lives" in this movie, it's too much of a coincidence to not have been intentional.
I like your mention of ("garcon means boy") line in Pulb Fiction and how Tarantino could make a character out of a tiny bit of a scene. That's called a great attention to details. re Sharo Tate depiction in the movie, Tarantino said exactly what you've just said in interview with director Paul Thomas Anderson.
MOFOSmackdownTheater I think I can help you find it. It was more of a recorded audio conversation. Here is a link: www.indiewire.com/2019/08/quentin-tarantino-paul-thomas-anderson-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-podcast-1202168301/
Interesting. I went back & watched your initial reaction to Inglourious Basterds because I was curious what your criticisms were. At the time you seemed to love the film and Tarantino himself as a director. I’m just curious what changed.
I personally think Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s most masterful film among a career of mostly excellent work.
I would definitely be interested to hear a sort of updated re-review of Inglourious Basterds, just to see if maybe I’m missing something.
I really enjoy your vids by the way. They’re always very thoughtful and thought provoking. I’m definitely not trying to be confrontational at all, just genuinely interested. ✌️
What a really nice, thoughtful comment and great way to say “bitch you confused”
I love Dicaprio but what you said about his grimace is spot on. There are permanent lines on his face due to the fact that he's always grimacing.
In another video she said it always looks like he’s taking a shit
Makes me wonder if Shutter Island would be even better with a different actor. Never really thought about it since I love the movie so much just as it is. I actually think Mark Ruffalo was just as important as Leo & is the reason I can rewatch it so many times. You get the feeling that those 2 really are close partners with a history.
Watched this for the first time last night and it was my first Quentin Tarantino film and I loved it and I'm hooked no matter what you had to say
"Tarantino is not a great writer" what a statement
I agree, he isn't.
Was just wondering, what’s your opinion on Leo’s performance in what’s eating Gilbert grape?
It sucks in fact the whole movie sucks. When I saw the trailer before the feature presentation of Wayne's World 2 on Vhs tape I new the actual movie was going to be awful.
A very young Dicaprio as Arnie in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is not only one of the worst acting performances I've seen in a movie but also one of the most annoying. He tries to be funny but hes just not.
very intelligent and well-thought-out review. I'm a huge hater of Tarantino movies as I find them to be hackjobs of older movies that he's seen. That said, I LOVED "Death Proof," and I absolutely LOVED "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood." I would go even further to say that Once Upon A Time is my favorite movie of 2019 thus far. I loved the way he captured this time period, and the two main characters were extremely exciting to see everytime they appeared on screen. Such an epic movie, and I can't believe this was Tarantino's work. I'll always give him a chance (even though I hate most of his movies)
they're not hackjobs of other movies, he's just influenced by alot of movies he's seen like every director is. even to be original you have to be influenced by something. also deathproof is his worst movie
@@jmckeev765 dude, it's one thing to be influenced by other movies...but he literally takes things out of other movies (direct songs and movie props) and inserts them directly into his movies. That's not being "influenced." That's a 100% hackjob from another movie. For example, the Iron Duck in Death Proof was taken directly from "Convoy." The Shaw Brother intro in some of his movies is the SAME intro from the Shaw Brothers. The music, names, even the same actors, were taken directly from other movies and put directly into his movies. That's not "being influenced." That's directly using other material from other movies.
I think maybe the issue you have with this film and maybe other reviewers is that he trades his usual Tarantino heady, philosophical dialogue between characters for visuals. In most of his films it's the banter between the actors that becomes the narrative, or the basis for a storyline. Instead we see the fading glory of the city, the rise of violence in movies and in a sense a loss of innocence. I disagree about the Margo Robbie portrayal of Sharon Tate. Her presence in the movie is more about symbolism than a literal presentation or a biopic of her. Instead she represents an idealized personification of beauty and perfection. It plays like a fable or a fantasized version of a memory. To me there's this theme of an era fading being exchanged for another one.
I didn't know talking about what Big Macs are called in Europe or who played Christie Love was "heady, philosophical" dialogue.
@@yournamehere6002 I did notice when I ordered a Royale Burger with cheese at Mickey Dees they assumed I was dipping into Descartes or Schopenhauer!
I disagree with your opinions on Leo and Brad but a great review I subbed.
I see Leo & Brad like this: Professional actors putting in a solid day’s work.
Nothing wrong with admiring an actor for just doing his job well even if you are constantly reminded that it’s Brad & Leo.
@@BingoNamo-gb8pz Yeah I agree, nothing wrong with an actor being themselves.
There is nothing wrong with preferring film over digital. It’s just his personal taste....
Wow. Such an insightful analysis. I think you’re quite right about the post-Jackie Brown films, but I noticed myself finding reasons to forgive him each time simply because I found the films to be campy and entertaining. For Kill Bill, I remember thinking, “well, this is his cross-genre love letter to films that inspired him” expecting he would go back to relative seriousness after. He didn’t.
I really thought this movie was crap, just a nostalgia piece, like something teenagers would put together: Batman vs. the Manson family. Lancer as a tv show was average at best but because QT thought it was good we should like it to.
The idea of insulating and compartmentalizing roles in filmmaking to where writers are writers and directors are directors tended to result in a stagnation in variety and creativity. By the time Tarantino, Richard Linklater and Kevin Smith came along many film critics noticed how film schools produced people who read all the same textbooks about how to write a film, same 3-act structures beat-for-beat hundreds of times over. Some filmmakers, they get to a point where they constitute every aspect of what they create. As with the Coens and other auteurs, it is beside the point after calling them auteurs to say their career would've been better or worse if they just picked a lane and stayed with it. It's disconcerting hearing anyone at this point talking about Tarantino as separate from his writing. Only Tarantino makes Tarantino films, for better and/or for worse.
My biggest gripe is how he white knights on behalf of other racial or religious groups, takes me right out of the film.
Yet, Jackie Brown is his best film.
I haven't seen the movie but if had to guess Tarantino doesn't see it as white knighting but what feel right to him. I can relate up to point if can help or do what is right. Shouldn't I?
@flmvdvsrg Gets away? He gets castrated and bleeds out.
It's a 90 minute movie at best that QT turns into a self-indulgent yawner. It's sad. He's been chasing "Reservoir Dogs" his whole career and hasn't come close to it ever. Fast forward through all the Sharon Tate crap and it's an enjoyable movie.
Watch Brad Pitt in the WW2 film Fury and you will see he fits the hardened veteran role perfectly going from North Africa, Sicily, France and Germany.
This film is a masterpiece. Such a great feeling walking out of this movie... I just wish we had a movie with this much love of pure cinema and not Disney fast food trash, reboots, remakes and sequels weekly.
no where near masterpiece, not even better than Jackie Brown
Thanks for discussing this. I've caught "Once Upon a Time ..." a few times on satellite television. I enjoy it. For me, the film picked up steam about an hour in, when Leonardo DiCaprio is filming the TV Western and goes on that self-loathing rant in his trailer. I love his use of period music in this. He picks great tunes and avoids the obvious tracks that Hollywood loves to use for period pieces set in the late '60s. I like the dialogue, too. It works for me. Shawn R., Mo-Mutt Music
Your commentary is fascinating and articulate.Looking forward to watching more of your videos.
Hi Maggie. I love seeing you again.
Now, I disagree with Margot Robbie’s character complains (which is not only yours).
***SPOILERS***
I don’t think this movie is about “Leo & Brad” (as many describe it). Those two go separate ways for a big portion of the movie.
From my point of view this movie is about 3 different stories: Rick Dalton’s, Cliff Booth’s and Sharon Tate’s.
The first story is about a middle age actor’s struggling to survive in a transitioning Hollywood, and a beautiful rendition to “western” and “spaghetti western”.
The second story is an exploration into a “tough guy” stuntman, an amazing visual time-travel to the 60s LA streets, to the “Americana” culture and a mystery story involving the Manson Family.
The third story is shown from the perspective of an observer. It’s not an exploration into Sharon Tate’s personal life and problems. It’s not study of character. Tarantino decided instead to make her character “minimalist”: graceful, warm-hearted, innocent, Tarantino places the camera behind her while she takes us wherever her impulses decide to make her go: to the middle of a dancing floor at The Playboy Mansion, crossing the street to watch a movie theater posters, to a bookstore, to the theater again to see herself in awe listening to people reaction to her movie. All those scenes involve little dialogue but a lot of walking. She’s like our host and guide through the film. Her character is shaped not so much on what she says but on what she does, and her constant smile and optimism. She moves freely without any restraints or regrets, wherever she wants.
That’s why at the end of the movie I felt a little relief on knowing that she was safe and nothing bad happened to her.
I'm reading the novelization of this film right now because I want to see if it's better to read a Tarantino film than it is to watch it. I've no plans to see the movie because I swore I'd never watch a Tarantino film again after seeing the last half of Inglorious Bastards on TV.
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. What makes me love this movie so much, is that it's NOT a sad movie! It's a feel good movie to watch when your feeling down on your luck. I ate nachos & popcorn & drank my Dr. Pepper & felt joy watching it. It didn't bring me an ounce of sadness😊
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!🤗
Your TOTALLY gonna like this comment. I can feel it!
😂😂😂😂
Tarantino is not a great writer? Lady, you've got it all wrong. It's fact it's the opposite of what you said. He is a great writer and a good director.
My wife & i saw that on a date night and we both loved it.
Yes! The way he utilizes tone and the audience's expectation building towards the end is brilliant!
Good review. I wonder how you might feel after seeing it again. Sharon Tate is more of a spirit that inhabits this movie, but she has significant parallels with Rick Dalton’s development. The pay off at the end is not just that Sharon lives and that her baby is born, but that Rick is born as a real person and not just a self-absorbed TV actor. Or at least he’s busy being born, as Dylan might say. And yes, this is Tarantino reflecting on his own life, getting married and having a baby. I think he’s actually saying that we can’t change the past, but we can change the future by changing ourselves. It’s more about where Hollywood and culture are going. It’s inly his 9th movie. We’ll see if they let him make a 10th.
I really love this review. I completely agree with your feelings of Brad and Leonardo. They have potential, but never knocked me out. Brad is better. Tate was nothing in the picture, but it was about people around her. I'm a Helter Skelter fanatic and it did veer my expectations. I like that. I was thinking it was going to be this Manson murders thing, but it's completely other. If it was all about Tate, that would be predictable. It's all about outside of it and that is really interesting.
I agree with you, the movie seems like the representation of the life that Tarantino wanted to live, and the nostalgia about the old ways of deaing with cinema. That's why it feels like a very ''personal'' movie but not in the way that you say this is a TRADEMARK Tarantino movie, it doesn't have many of his own touches in it cause he wanted to keep that world untouched i guess. Although i didn't go crazy for it, i enjoyed it, especially the two characters Rick and Cliff and their great relationship. It left me with an urge to rewatch it at some point.
I really liked the ending because Tarantino was showing one way out of the end or the era, which was the Leonardo character following Clint Eastwood's trajectory of going from TV western to spaghetti western success and subsequently branching out. When he meets the neighbors it shows him realizing he could do more.
Tarantino has been a C- director since Pulp Fiction - one of my top tenners. His success reflects the fact that most his viewers would prefer to have a dessert 3x a day, had it not been for the consequences. Many might still do.
Only just catching up with this review and have to say it’s spot on once again. You always make me consider things I may have missed in your reviews. Incisive, insightful and hugely watchable. Kudos 🙌
Spot on, my ass. You need therapy too
4:23. Honestly Ive always kinda thought that too, his early performances especially, titanic and Romeo and Juliet 🤦♂️. But even in performances later on like Shutter Island and low key even in inception he’s not my favourite. He’s just too dramatic and plays the roles too strong I guess. I do like him in the Departed and I also think he deserved his Oscar for the Revenant, he’s definitely a good actor but seems overrated.
So, 'The Revenant'......Leo wasn't great/good? Really??
I went into this expecting to love it, but I was bored out of my head. The performances were great, the filmmaking was top notch as it always is with Tarantino, but that doesn't make up for the almost complete lack of anything interesting happening. Even the finale seems tacked on, over the top, and out of step with the rest of the film. Will never watch again. As much as I love his early films, the last 3 have not resonated with me at all.
Almost every review for this film are very frustrating for me because people basically praise it uncritically as if they are doing what they think they are supposed to do. I just can't imagine people love this movie. As I said there are things that deserve praise, but as for enjoying the story, I just don't get it.
tarantino did was he captured thr essence of 1969 the freewheeling breezy feeling of the time , Brad pitt speeding along with cool music, the sun was in those days hot, the sky had a bright hazy quality to it, no worries seemingly as hollywood was wrapped up in the times of late 1960s. Brad Pitt was a stand up guy in the film and you felt you were watching not an actor but the real guy. i thought it was a wonderful film as i said capturing hollywood perfectly that summer when long hair ruled girls and guys hitchhiking up and down the strip, things like the vietnam war, racism,sexism just was not on the minds of people in 1969 hollywood. so many other things i could say but another time. great video thanks.
Maggie i recommend you see it again in the theatre it does get better on second viewing
@@MusaShinwari settle down theres no need for talk like that
A really boring film. Could not watch it straight through.
Good point about Tarantino's use of actors. Shawn R., Mo-Mutt Music
Hi Maggie it’s a classic review. I want ask you a question my favourite actors are those who can express every emotions through their eyes and subtle facial expressions which male actor according to u stands out in this criteria
Cmon. Saying Tarantino is not a fantastic writer? That’s absurd I’m sorry.
He's decent.
You NAILED it about Dicaprio...He OVERacts in everything...Way too LOUD also...Was waiting for someone to tell the truth about him...This is why he never won any Oscars...Well they gave him a courtesy oscar that he did NOT even deserve
This film is a great example of it being about ‘the journey’. I enjoy letting it unwind for me. It ended too soon
He is self indulgent, all Americans of his generation and later are. Parts of his films are great, but his films as a whole are not that good or long lasting. She's right in that his films are enjoyable in bits and pieces.
Was there a lot of feet in the film?
@Skungy Jones lovely kissable tootsies
it's Tarantino...sooo
You're review is ''KIND OF'' interesting but i like how Quentin Tarantino's historical revisionism kind of makes his movies ending better ,in a movie you don't want to see HISTORICAL facts followed on point because it is a movie not a documentary , i love how he's kind of making fun of bruce lee in this movie ,i consider bruce lee arrogant to...
Was Darth Vader shooting this vid? Ha, what's that noise?
Have you seen The Basketball Diaries ? Even today I think it's one of DiCaprio's best performances and he was like 16 years old! One of the best portrayals of heroin addiction and I love Jim Carroll.
I agree with you on Leonardo DiCaprio, BEFORE the Revenant AND Django Unchained; Leonardo's roles were always EXTREMELY REPETITIVE
Totally agree. Pitt and DiCaprio are not character actors, but they are fine in the right ROLES. Ditto Tom Cruise. So I wanted more from both in this, but their eyes convey nothing emotional. Pitt is fun in KALIFORNIA (1993).
Man..this lady is fantastic. Love her in depth critque of cinema. On Brad Pitt..I understand your perspective on him as many have this opinion of his work. I would just point to his work in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford if u don't usually get much emoting from his eyes. In my opinion this is one of the best performances in film history and there is no denying Pitt's close up work as there are numerous shots of nothing but Pitt's eyes only. Powerful, subtle, controlled performance that was worthy of an Oscar.
I think you may have overlooked the point behind how Sharon Tate is portrayed in this film.
Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate is supposed to be uneventful. You're watching what it's like for a normal, unassuming, person who's in the middle of her glory days. She's carefree in a throuple, she's naively picking up a hitchhiker, she's dancing while doing laundry, she's going to the movies in the middle of the day and using her newfound B-list celebrity status to save a measly 75 cents on a movie she's in. It's all done as a constant reminder (for viewers aware of her tragedy) that this woman will be murdered in the prime of her life.
It's not until the title of the film is shown at the very end, that you get the point of it all: This entire story is Quentin Tarantino's version of a fairy tale. Hence "Once upon a time...".
Our gallant heroes are two men in the twilight of their careers who avert the Manson murders and save the damsel before she's in any distress. The rise of movies made by guys like Polanski helped push out shows/movies helmed by guys like Dalton and thrusted him into having to do small TV roles and spaghetti westerns. If not for that, he and an acid-tripping Cliff Booth (with his vicious dog) wouldn't likely be both at Dalton's house that night, nor awake at midnight.
We're left to believe that innocent, unassuming, Sharon Tate gets to play out the remainder of her life (and rise to stardom) as she should.
The End 🙂
I'm a huge Tarantino fan, and love his nerdism and technically he is quite a master. That said, I think your criticism of his indulgences has high merit. You are wrong about the portrayal of Sharon Tate however. Every "manson" movie has treated her as a victim which is easy. Tarantino just made her a ray of light as someone who was up and coming as a starlet that Hollywood used to embrace, but as the tide was turning in 69, it was a light that was never to be, SO, by giving her a small player part, he was truly sticking to a fairy tale and not real life, as opposed to the fairy tale "real life" portrayal of the two male fictional characters. It's all so complicated. Lol. Tarantino movies always encourage discussion and analysis. Love your point of view and I look forward to all your reviews. ✌❤
@deepfocuslens - there are actors who are aware of the camera. This includes Leo. There are actors who forget the camera. This includes Anthony Hopkins. I met Anthony Hopkins and I did the Elephant Man. He will never forget me.
I didn't enjoy it at all. Everything that made his earlier works like Reservoir Dogs so great are in complete reverse here. The pacing is glacial, there are so many inconsequential filler scenes, the dialogue is not particularly memorable, the stories don't particularly intertwine in any clever way. It's just all incredibly bloated and safe.
Agree with you about DiCaprio. He was better than usual, but I'd still have preferred a different actor.
Your opinion od DiCaprio is spot on!!!!!
Which is your favorite actor of all time ?
Margot Robbie's one-note character is one of the things that left an impression on me. By having her this way, Tarantino let us invest our own ideal into her. In a sense, then, she belonged to no one and all of us. He was absolutely objectifying her, but I think in a way that was meant to memorialize her. I think he felt a real sorrow for her.
The way Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate was marketed (i.e. trailers) was frustrating even before the film's release. Having seen it, and having loved "Inglourious Basterds", I found it very hard to articulate how this particular ending stumped me the way it did. It occurs to me that end-of-an-era narratives are not for all writers; they require a specific skillset. Tarantino is dealing with real people and events but mixing it with fiction. Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" is rooted entirely in fiction in a who-gives-a-shit town but finds a much more realism-based path in [that specific case] how teenagers, families and the community around them operate. So maybe it's the grandeur of Hollywood as a setting that makes things messy and bogs down crucial things like characterization. I'm sorry Tarantino, but I'm more likely to revisit "The Virgin Suicides" on a regular basis.
Yeah.
I feel like DiCaprio is a very technical actor.
But emotionally he feels kinda blunt.
Still tho, as you said. When he's satirical and funny.... He's amazing.
I’ve been wanting to see this film for the longest I love DiCaprio
So you say Tarantino isn’t a great writer and you struggle to like Leo and Brad Pitt, two of this generations best actors? You’re entitled to your opinion but I wholeheartedly disagree
Honestly like this movie more each time I see it.
I would like to see Tarantino make a lower budget film like he did in the 90s. He could really go down to bare bones and show off his directorial/ writing strengths without having so much grandeur distracting from it.
I would love, love to see a Tarantino movie that was co-written or completely written by a collaborator.
You nailed it. Self-indulgence. The best distillation of what he does best is True Romance---directed by someone else.
Can you define what you mean by "a cerebral performer"?
Also I went to see the movie without knowing who Sharon Tate was and as such found her character totally redundant since her true history was changed.
Same here, I didn't make the assumption that she was a plot device, and she felt a little out of place. I really enjoyed the movie, though.
11:25
I don't think Tarantino was trying to get the audience to hope for the murder, instead I think he was trying to cause dread of what will happen Sharon.
Throughout the whole movie Sharon is presented as happy, friendly, and constantly smiling. Tarantino also has the ominous shadow of the murder hanging over the film with Manson and his family.
Then Quentin, rescues the audience with a bloody happy ending
It's part tribute to Hollywood golden age, part buddy movie, part fantasy revenge movie. It's ending (*spoilers) literally answers the question, what if the Manson family went to the wrong house? They would literally get the sh*t beaten out of them by a Hollywood stunt man. In reality Steve McQueen was invited to Tate's house that evening but couldn't attend, so this is not far from what could have happened, but instead Tate had to rely on her hairdresser boyfriend for protection. And we know how well that went. Yes it's a fingers up to feminists, telling them, yes we do still need masculinity.
I wanted so badly to like OUATIH more than I did, but it seemed flawed at the very foundation of its storytelling. I am fully sympathetic to Tarantino’s nostalgia for the Los Angeles of Yore, but when your movie is three honking hours long, some memberberries gotta be put on the chopping block.
The climax of a movie should tie together the characters and themes of a movie, and yet the climax of OUATIH did neither. Sharon Tate wasn't even physically present! Rick Dalton’s excursion to Italy served no narrative purpose other than to furnish him with a wife, whose ass-kicking moment could have properly gone to Sharon Tate. Oh, and what function did Chekhov’s LSD cigarette serve?
There’s a very beautiful moment in the movie when all the main characters are paralleled in golden hour shots to the strains of “California Dreamin’”. It’s a transcendent moment where the threads come closest to being tied together, so that’s where you should go- Fade to black. Act 3. The Manson Family are on Cielo Drive. Instead, the movie keeps puttering around, losing all its drive.
Great review ive already seen this film 3 times and i think its great and i loved the soundtrack the dialogue and it was a great love letter to hollywood
What's your favorite actor and actress?
I'd love to hear your take on Brad Pitt's performance in Ad Astra.
I think this is a film that gets better with more views. In regards to Margot Robbie character is like a princess, a pour being of light. In many ways I think this film is a fairy tale.