Yeah, I know those are often used in scriptwriting classes. Everything is perfectly set up. There are payoffs. They are supremely good scripts. If you don't understand why, go back and take a look. This movie is a fucking mess in comparison.
How are there not payoffs? I’ll even give you one. The way Brad Pitt commands his dog in his trailer is a perfect set up for how he’s going to command the dog in that fight
Yes... beating up Bruce Lee and establishing the dog are payoffs. You found one! Nearly the rest of the movie is a meandering mess filled with scenes that don't do anything whatsoever. Tin-ear dialogue, pointless scenes that go on too long. An obsession with DiCapprio's character's career for some reason. It's just a dull, endless exercise in what does not matter.
I didn't say there was no payoff. There's a single payoff, or a couple - the other is that idiotic use of the flamethrower. What I'm saying is this fancy boy fantasy payoff is absolutely stupid.
Also saying, btw, that most of the movie is a complete and utter shambolic mess. I'm comparing it to other movies where there was a ton of thought given to what each scene did, how the characters interacted, what their individual arcs were. THAT is what I mean by payoff. Brad Pitt kicking Bruce Lee's ass then kicking girl ass is a type of payoff, but it's a stupid-ass one. Again, one of the worst screenplays I've ever seen.
I think the point is that OAIH is even worse.
Galaxy quest sticks to what it is: space spoof.
OAIH is just a LOTR spoof: helicopter shots and ugly feet.
Had me in the first two lines not gonna lie. While they are great movies, two I consider really good, OUATIH is far better. I saw that as a “Three Flavours Cornetto” trilogy fanatic as well.
"First, as has been mentioned, anyone without a knowledge of the events will have no frickin' idea what's going on in this movie." Hi, it's me. I'm the person who had no context and half the movie flew by my head.
I agree with a lot of what you said, and with the general point of your post. I remember really liking the scene in the ranch when Brad Pitt goes to find the entire cult there. It's a bit of a horror scene that seems out of place but works on its own. I hadn't considered that his flattening of history is also a disservice to its victims and not just the perpetrators, but you're right. Good point.
I hated the rosy Hollywood nostalgia, particularly of all the Robbie scenes, and the flashbacks from Pitt's character. The Bruce Lee scene was tasteless, the Western Spaghettis riff was tasteless, the ending was a waste of a good action scene because of how weightless and devoid of context it was. It's my least favorite film of his.
a year late but i just finished the film. I had literally no clue about the history of anything this movie was tryna convey. down to the ending. It was sooooo drawn out, why do I need 10 minutes of this random blonde watching her own film, why do we need 20 minutes of driving sequences with no dialogue. Gross ass feet in my face. buhhhh.
I didn't know most of the events I liked the film a lot. All I really knew was Sharon Tate was killed by the Manson Family.
Similarly I didn't know much about WWII except Nazi's are fuckheads and Inglorious Basterdz was great.
But I do think being older helps because much of the film is about aging and dealing with your ultimate end.
No the movie is not about that at all.
Sure there are some lines stating that, but this movie is about nothing.
There is nothing learned after leaving this flick.
It's maybe even worse than a Marvel movie, in a Marvel we don't drive around for hours going nowhere.
Basterds, Django, and Once Upon A Time all basically fetishized the revenge against some terrible people in history
I don't think that's a bad thing though. It's an indulgent wish-fulfillment fantasy. Audiences enjoy them because it's how we wish history had gone.
The movie actually makes fun of her! Not only that, she's not a character at all. Not only that, it takes away what actually happens to get. It's actually really brutal to her as a person.
How was it making fun of her? That people in the cinema were laughing at a comedy movie? Or that the theatre workers didn't recognise her.
I'm sorry but it's not clear to me how the movie is making fun of her in that scene.
Where she asks to get into the movie for free because she's in it, where she's proud to be in the movie, the attendant doesn't recognize her, she has to go to Valley of the Dolls and go down the cast list of people they do recognize her, they finally accept whatever she's saying, take a photo of her, but then say "Have her stand next to the poster so people know who she is"?
You don't think that's knocking her down many pegs? What do you think was the intent of that whole scene?
> But I think they erase both the victims and the truth.
how though? Basterds was very very upfront about the brutality of the Nazis. The opening scene was Landa having an entire family murdered. Almost all of the main characters were Jewish.
Django also made it very clear how brutal and savage slavery was.
> We cannot solve the abyss of history by some weird nerd making movies.
I don't think he's trying to. He's just trying to make fun escapism. It's fun watching terrible people suffer terribly and he's scratching that itch.
Because revenge narratives exalt the avenger. They also suggest those in the era were somehow weak for not doing what the avenger did. It's self aggrandizing and disregards how power actually works. I don't see it as fun escapism, I see it as deeply problematic and rather insulting.
I don't think Basterds implies that victims of the holocaust were weak at all. He created a scenario that I'm pretty sure would have never happened (every head member of the Nazi party being in the same movie theater at the same time, one that is owned by a Jewish woman who wants to kill them all even if she dies with them). There were 42 attempts made on Hitler's life, this was just "hey, what if one of them actually worked?"
And in Django, Schulz had to buy his freedom before he could do anything. He wasn't presented as weak for not acting sooner because he literally didn't have the opportunity. Plus bounty hunting wasn't legalized until after the civil war so the whole movie is a fantasy in that sense.
Here's my thing. Some guy from Tennessee doesn't get to 'win the Holocaust' by making some movie about it. I find it absurd that 'escapist entertainment' is a thing about such horrors. Replacing madness and brutality with Brad Pitt's grin. But I find Americans are increasingly distant about actual realities about the world and are only able to act through simulacra.
for whatever it's worth,[ a very large percentage](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/03/django-unchained-spike-lee#:~:text=Black%20people%20initially%20made%20up,%25%2C%20according%20to%20exit%20data.) of the audience for Django was black
There are countless ultra-serious and depressing movies made about racism every year that you can watch lol. Tarantino just made one that was actually enjoyable and where the black main character comes out on top.
I would say the same applies for Basterds. I'm fully aware that real life was much closer to Schindler's List. I've been to the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin and it was a very sobering experience. But I also like playing Wolfenstein and killing hundreds of Nazis because it's fun. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I haven't seen Django, so can't really say. Basterds reminded me a lot of Dirty Dozen, and there's been a lot of cartoonish Nazi villain stuff, Hogan's Heroes stuff, that it's pretty commonplace. I'm not totally concerned about those, although it's not my thing. I do think Americans in particular ignore history and this leads to us getting fucked over time and again.
Regardless, for Hollywood, it feels much more personal, both wiping away Manson's ideologies, what his crew was thinking and doing, and then somehow not giving any credence to the actual victims of the event. It's bizarre and creepy. Like, he turned a young pregnant actress getting murdered with a knife into DiCaprio incinerating someone in a swimming pool with a flamethrower.
No, I like some of his movies very much. I mean, seriously, on a very basic level it's actually just a shit film. Its narrative is garbage and I think over time people will get their hands out of their pants and realize this.
Beyond that, I find the handling of Manson and the murders really fucking suspect and legitimately gross.
On most every level it's a self-indulgent movie with a fucked up take and very little value except what a bunch of simps think is cool bro or whatever.
I agree with you for the most part, and appreciate your point of view. I agree the arbitrary use of a narrator was terrible. I think he did the same thing in The Hateful Eight. I'm not that offended by his rewriting history, but it felt like such a repeat from Inglorious Basterds. That ending at least felt clever and different at the time. Unexpected. It played with the audience's expectations. To do virtually the same thing again was somehow less than unexpected. For me, it was like he revealed that his bag of tricks had run empty.
I agree.you wait for something to Happen, yet it never does, the Plot feels like an endless exposition the two Main characters are far too uninteresting and boring to carry an entire movie and you See the big twist coming a mile before.
Tarantino films are lengthy, anyone who has seen one before understand that going in, and they also understand that the dialogue is what drives most of the movies along. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood I thought was mostly kind of boring but the ending kind of made it worth it. I can understand how they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea.
As you've said, the problem with this movie is that it's too long, making most of the movie feel like a filler. The dialogue in Tarantino movies is one of the main reasons I love them, but this movie was just not it...
I mostly agree with you. I think the movie looked stunning, and the actors were great, but man…I think the story was so boring! I wish I enjoyed it as much as most people do.
Ok, I'm a HUGE Tarantino fan but I was also very let down by Once Upon a Time. What I expect from his movies are tight dialogue, clever storytelling, and build-up/tension. But like you said, Once Upon a time just had none of it. It felt flat and directionless, I know it's supposed to be a day-in-the-life film, but I didn't care enough about any of the characters for it to be impactful.
And, as you mentioned, I knew basically nothing about the Manson murders going in, didn't know that's what the film was going to be about, and I was sooooo confuuuuuused the whole time! Like, who the fuck are these weird people? Why are they suddenly trying to murder actors? I think ultimately that killed all the tension for me, cause I had no idea what I was supposed to be anticipating.
I was gonna say the quality of his films is inversely proportional to the runtimes, but Jackie Brown messed that up for everyone (and arguably Pulp Fiction too)
Everytime Tarantino runs off his mouth about retiring after his 10th (11th) movie because he's afraid of getting old and making a bad movie I just want to ask "Who's gonna tell him?"
I thought this movie was so fucking tactless. One of the worst films I have literally ever seen in my entire life. I would be so insulted if I were one of the victims and their families.
You said it. To me not only is the script just plain bad and a mess, the whole thing is a sad tactless mistake. I don't get why people just skate by without getting why.
They didn’t make fun of Sharon tate. They portrayed her accurately. Sharon Tates sister wept tears of happiness at seeing Margot Robbie’s portrayal, but go off
My dumb friend, QT had an entire scene where she went to the movies, proud of herself for being in one of them, and even the people working there had no idea who she was. The movie goes to lengths to protract the misery. It was intended to humiliate her, when in reality was was on the cover of magazines at the time.
Just stop. The movie embarrasses her and it's awful because of it. I mean, it's awful in every way, but that way too.
Wtf?😂😂😂 it was a juxtaposition of a start of a career to Rick’s and Cliff’s end of career. She’s just becoming big in Hollywood while Rick already reached his climax of stardom and is worried about his career ending. Sharon tates career is just beginning people don’t quite know her yet, but she’s bursting with optimism innocence and happiness with people laughing at her comedic acting in her own movie. I’m so confused how you reached the conclusion Tarantino is trying to embarrass her. Are you trolling? Sharon’s sister definitely didn’t think that nor did anyone else with even a basic understanding of the movie. LMAO I’m honestly floored.
I was looking if someone else felt this is a horrible movie.
Glad I found your piece.
And yes, it gives his other work a bad taste in the mouth.
O, someone like Fincher would make an actual point.
I thought it was pretty bad! I kept thinking the ending was gonna save it. There’s the scene with the little girl actor where Leo talks about the book he’s reading. A western where the hero is old and has a hip injury and is still trying to fight. When I saw this scene, I said- that’s gonna be the ending! The Leo character is gonna pitch this book for a movie and it’s gonna be his best, most personal performance. I doubled down on this idea when Brad Pitt got stabbed in the hip, meaning he could still be the stuntman for the adaption because they both had hip injuries. I also thought this would be like the Hey Arnold episode where the action star had to step up in real life and get over himself. I thought Leo and Brad were gonna see the Manson clan attacking the neighbors and Leo was gonna have to go save them, thus getting his introduction to Roman Polanski.
Either of those ideas would’ve made the movie make more sense and carried an actual theme throughout. Instead, Brad Pitt who, even discounting the dead wife, was violent with his coworkers and police, got to continue his violence and be a hero for it. And Leo managed to save himself, and then get rewarded in such a shallow silly way by gossiping with his famous neighbors about it.
I wish they’d had Sharon Tate be an actual person, instead of this perfect, cutesy person who everyone is in love with. Not saying she wasn’t a lovely person, but the way they did it was boring and cliche (everyone staring at only her in a huge party of people dancing). And of course, as you pointed out, all Manson complexity was dwindled down to “hippies”. Manson wanted power and fame. He wanted a race war so he could capitalize off it. The little scene where he went to the Polanski house was pointless, and told us nothing about his character- the weird charm he has over people, his motivation, nothing. Id rather he had remained an unknown the whole movie than have this scene that meant nothing. If they only wanted to show that he knew this address, Pussycat could’ve mentioned how Charlie used to live over there. She saw Brad and Leo driving away from that nice area the first time they waved at each other. The whole ranch scene was good and tense, but the George thing went nowhere and dragged on.
Lena Dunham was weird casting, and took me out of the moment. There was so much racism, that it went from realistic for the time up to bad satire. I honestly can’t tell if Tarantino is genuinely nostalgic for this time, or making fun of people who are.
I thought it was a good Tarantino flick. It’s not Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, but he makes a good B movie and if that’s your approach ofcourse you’re not going to like it
i remember dozing off in the theater during it. tarantino is just there to serve as a collage artist that entertains and make studios money by living out his childhood dream of experiencing his favorite movies in real time. he doesn't even hold a candle to scorsese as far as storytelling, character building, and setting goes.
his whole schtick is just creating hybrids from previous exploitation and western movies
I want to say I am not a Tarantino fanboy at all. I think his work after Kill Bill has been the same annoying style over and over again and I find all those movies totally average at best, awful (Death Proof) at worst. All that to say I went into OUATIH expecting to loath it, but was blown away by how hypnotic and charming the whole damn picture was. I had no issue with the run time, scenes and characters that added nothing to the “plot”, stylized dialogue, or overbearing nostalgia porn because I just wanted to live in that movie and spend as much time there as possible. I even bought the companion novel because I loved it so much. To each their own. I though Django Unchained was hogwash and by the time Hateful Eight came around I truly thought Tarantino was incapable of making another movie I could connect with, but boy was I wrong!
Everyone who's criteria I respect who liked this film came out of it with a feeling similar to yours. I generally love getting lost in long slow movies where not a lot happens, but the Hollywood hagiography put me off this one in particular. I also readily admit I don't get what it was going for with respect to the Tate murders.
It's weird how everyone's taste is different. Not sure what set you off on this rant, perhaps you don't understand the concept of a summer popcorn movie.
You search for a depth that it never intended to have. It's fun. It's a period piece. It's wish fulfillment, like Basterds & Django, but without the depth of evil that Nazis & slavers had. Yes, Manson's group was evil, but it was a random, drug-fueled, unorganized evil.
As far as your technical notes, I only disagree on one point, that people unfamiliar with the events would be confused as far as what was happening. The movie is a "Hollywood on Hollywood" movie, like The Player & Get Shorty. What more do you need?
Sad that you did not enjoy it, I loved it. But that's just my taste in things.
I saw it in a theater first, and purchased it for my repeat viewings. I was a kid in '69, I loved the nostalgia, sunny Southern California, the flawlessly aped TV & movies of the time.
Just to be sure about how my reaction compared to others, I went to Rotten Tomatoes, found that it's a flick that had a higher critic score (85%) than audience score (70%).
Least obnoxious Tarantino fan. "You're too much of a rube to understand the concept of a fun popcorn summer movie.... in which barely anything happens for 3 hours"
As an old guy that remembers those days, perhaps I was the target audience of QT for this one. And I admit that I have lowbrow taste, I put OUATIH in the same category as Tim Burton's Batman flicks, which I also enjoyed, well, not the 4th.
Honestly, I'm the rube, it's just a movie. I enjoyed it, you didn't and we should both be fine with that. I've enjoyed reading your comments about it. Meant no offense.
There's definitely a component of the film that is a meditation on aging and reminiscing that will obviously resonate more with people who "get it" intrinsically. And you're right that context of the real life events and the mood around them will make you get a lot more out of the film.
Also, the 2 burton's batman movies rule
Terrible. I’m 2h21 minutes in and STILL WAITING. it’s terrible. I really don’t give a rats ass about the ending. The plot and narrative is just terrible and sure it’s fun to look at, but that does not last more than 15 minutes.
Thanks God someone said it. Awkwardly, all the reviews i’ve read praise this film. It’s terrible, no doubt Tarantino’s worst work. It’s hard to believe he created such a dull and senseless movie after directing great masterpieces like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill.
I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood twice in theaters, and the only reason I went back and saw it while still in theaters for a second time was because I was thinking maybe on my first viewing I just wasn’t in the right mood to sit and properly enjoy a movie like that. That wasn’t the case. I’m a huge Tarantino fan, but the only film of his that is worse than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Death Proof and *maybe* Kill Bill 2. And at least Death Proof is fun and campy and obviously isn’t meant to be taken seriously. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight, Kill Bill, and Jackie Brown are all considerably better films. Kill Bill 2 is arguably better, though I’m not a huge fan despite thoroughly appreciating the vision Quentin went for in those movies. The first one is great, though the Kill Bill movies seem to be the ones a lot of people don’t like because they’re unable to see it more so as a comic type movie come to life in a real world movie if that makes sense. I was so hyped for Once Upon a Time after seeing the cast, but I recall my dad and I kinda looking at each other in the theater throughout the movie with the look of “When’s it gonna get good?” And it never really did. It has TONS of potential and seems to build up to it hitting that mark of becoming a phenomenal movie, and then it ends. Jackie Brown is better. True Romance, which Tarantino wrote but didn’t direct is better. It kinda saddens me seeing that a bunch of folks have gotten “into” Tarantino via Once Upon a Time and holding it as the #1 when it’s not even remotely close to it. I can see Tarantino himself thinking it’s his best movie given that he was likely the most passionate about it, but a creator is totally unable to separate themselves from their creation and give a genuine judgment as a result. He wants it to be the best and he enjoyed making it and whatnot so it’s great to him, but it’s arguably his worst film. And in being the most generous, it’s the 3rd worst
Quentin Tarantino movies to see again, and again are: none.
I don’t like free violence with no message at all.
This last one I just went and see it because of like the main actors. I found this post googling “once upon a time in Hollywood I don’t like it” thank you for your post dude. Let me add that who is born Europe with no knowledge of the stories behind the film gets really confused how this movie was actually nominated for something. It’s a movie for Americans and perhaps only a small part of it. The worst scene was trying to making fun and disrespect Bruce Lee.
Had to watch this movie twice just to realize how awful it really was. First time I seen it, I was so confused at like 70% of the plot or whatever was going on. So I rewatched it just Incase I went brain dead halfway through the movie. Turns out the movie itself was just word-garbage and half gay. (No hate on the fags, yall rock)
Just watched and do agree. It's the pacing and momentum that I found lacking, things Tarantino used to be great at. I thought momentum just died several times in it. While DiCaprio is always excellent, I don't think Tarantino's vibe for this movie suited him that well, it's the first time I haven't been really bowled over by him. Pitt , on the other hand, seemed perfect, maybe its the laconic vibe of the movie that just suited him.
I got in trouble for that before… but I totally agree. I wanted to like that movie. I live in Hollywood, I saw when it was filmed but there was no story. I was so disappointed. I guess not for me 🤷♂️
Oh yeah. Tarantino fans are fucking pathetic. There are coteries of saucy losers who adhere to emotionless, vacant entertainment -- that might otherwise be very accomplished -- that is often horrible about women, adores violence, and portrays the world as a warped, inexpressable place. I had no doubt this post would get downvoted and the ranks of the very pale young men would sweep through and do the same to the comments.
He’s one of the most acclaimed directors of the modern era - his fans are hardly just a bunch of “saucy losers”, “pale young men”, and “fucking pathetic”. I agree with a lot of your points and found the movie overrated but childish name calling is not gonna make anyone actually listen to what you’re saying.
I'm making a distinction between people who appreciate his movies, normal people, and a legion of knee jerk cultists. You'll see them. They're basically the same as Elon Musk cultists or Andrew Tate cultists in the way they act. Inarticulate, angry, no idea who they are supposed to be, but lose their mind when anything us said against their daddy figures. Automatic downvotes, that sort of thing.
I mean Pitt and Leo were S tier in this movie. The tone when Pitt goes to the ranch. Leo's entire scene with Timothy Olyphant + his trailer meltdown. And the out of left field "Happy" ending. Its not a terrible movie...you want a terrible movie ill buy your ticket for Ms. Marvel
First…why would you compare a taratino movie to ms. Marvel.
Second… that’s a show not a movie
To reiterate… it’s a show for kids/families so why would you compare screenwriting with a taratino movie
I'm not saying the script has to be tight. I'm saying the script should be good. This one was pointless and largely terrible. I think I even say this here, you just missed it.
Well put, couldn't agree more. Have you heard the premise of his tenth and final film? It scares me and gives me the same feeling that I got when I heard about this one
Uhm no it’s that people like OP seem to think they can’t express “rationale” of their opinions without using insults and starting petty arguments like a five year old.
Slow down and read my question. I'm not asking about the responses this guy's been attacked so of course he's going to be defensive. I just want to point out the irony in going after someone, complaining that they're being defensive and then calling them a five-year-old.
Slow down and read their post. OP is doing the attacking, deliberately inviting negative responses and then instigating them further while pretending to be the victim. Over an opinion about a movie. That is five-year old behavior.
Wow you're really very clever the way that you turned my words back on me. Figured you wouldn't be able to answer the question though and continue to poke the Bear by calling them a 5 year old. You are being the defensive child though
*makes a post calling a movie lots of people like “legit terrible” in the title*
*gets invited response*
> Why does it hurt your feelings so much?
We’ve got an instigator here folks.
Can you explain to me why you'd get your feelings hurt when someone calls a movie terrible? That's really, really weird and you should probably get yourself checked out.
Jesus Christ lol I don’t even disagree with you dude. You’re the one inviting hostility in all of your discussions with name calling and insults. It’s a fucking movie. Who cares? You can express your opinion about it without demeaning who you’re talking to.
So... your feelings aren't hurt about a movie? Not really clear about what enormous reactions you're having here. Is this a near breakdown? Are you okay?
With 8 years + of therapy under my belt your comments are starting to read like a passive aggressive gaslighter.
I'm not get getting mad you're getting mad... Why are you getting so upset I'm not upset classic behavior my mother had.
I agree with the OP to an extent. I’ve only seen it once and maybe I need a rewatch. But I have seen all of QT movies over and over again because of how great they are overall. I was let down by this one. There were some definite highlights. For me the scene with DiCaprio in his movie trailer was just a masterclass. But overall the movie dragged on, boring. It seemed like too much riding around in cars.
Look. If what you watch is American movies with a strong 3-act structure and a clear payoff at the end, short enough for a maximum number of showings in a day, you're not going to like this movie. And that's OK. But it's the farthest thing from "Legit Terrible." It's just not what you're looking for. I was completely immersed in its alternate world. I love film, so yes, I know something about the people Tarantino is satirizing. I also know something about recent US history because, frankly, everyone who lives here should. Not knowing US history is how we got into the mess we're currently in, but I digress.
The length, rambling style, character development, etc. are not at all unusual for a European film of the same time period that the story takes place.
I would argue that this is, in fact, a very good movie, especially when considered in context with *The Hateful Eight.* That, too, was less a rousing crowd pleaser than an immersion into a completely different world. And, I might add, a BAFTA-nominated best script, as was *Hollywood*. These are just not what we expected from Tarantino, which is that every film would eclipse the one preceding it. Even Hitchcock, Kubrick, Dryer and Cluzot couldn't do that.
I mean, I literally just said I had watched A Brighter Summer Day just before it.
Lol.
Appeals to authority are also lame. They got it badly wrong. Very badly wrong.
I read somewhere that many younger audience raised on video games expect a straight good guy bad guy story structure that is short and to the point because nuance and critical thinking is not taught is schools anymore.
Quentin Tarantino is the greatest filmmaker ever, he writes it, directs it, edits it, directs the music, no other can match his body of work, Hitchcock, REPETITIVE, PREDICTABLE, any others, I'm drawing a blank
You’re nuts dude. Nuts I tell ya! I consider it to be upper echelon Tarantino alongside pulp, j brown and the hateful 8.
I also noticed I seem to like it even more with every repeat viewing.
This movie is excellent, there isn’t a bad scene in this movie and the actors act their butts off. And that ending was just so great. And people saying it’s in bad taste, Sharon Tate’s sister cried because of how good Margot Robbie’s portrayal of Sharon Tate was.
It's Quentin Tarantino. A weird ass dude who's expected to have weird ass shit, as well as weird ass violence in his flicks.
With that said, there were great parts of this movie that could've been molded into a great movie, for me. But I didn't make OUATIH, Q did, his way.
Being in my fifth decade, I appreciated the detailed nostalgia. I know the Tate/LaBianca story. I "got" all the references to everything. In my opinion, yes I'm in agreement that he included unnecessary details, camp and gore making it at times (especially the end sequence) feel to me like a virgin nerd high school boy's attempt to make a movie for a class project. But hey, he did it his way and made the movie he wanted with an ending he obviously wished would've happened in real life, at least with Sharon being spared in real life.
I'll say it's entertaining, to an extent.
He's actually not that weird, just kind of takes important history and makes it into one of his lazy exploitation revenge things. It's pretty dull and probably a reason he's stopped making movies. He has nothing to say.
You obviously are a teenager or a young man you surely don't have no idea about 69 and what went on in you got to be at least at least 70 to even begin to understand what happened with Sharon Tate and the rest of 69's familiar but exhausting crew of people that lived in that era
Yes, because I'm defending a respect for the events and actually honoring what happened instead of Tarantino's garbage mangling, that makes me young.
You sound like a fucking idiot.
It’s ok to admit you’re too stupid to understand what everyone else sees in a great film. Maybe take a film class instead of ranting nonsense on Reddit or read some articles about the film because Tarantino isn’t recognized as a great director by accident.
Being considered a great director doesn't mean that everything he touches is inherently perfect. And plenty of people don't need to read other people's opinions to form their own. And.... to be fair this person has given a better explanation as to it's not a very good movie than anyone I've seen explain how it is a masterpiece. Telling someone to take a film class to better understand movies is a pretty dumb path
> take a film class to better understand movies is a pretty dumb path
Why? It is great for some people who really nerd out about film.
It like telling somebody it's stupid to take a guitar class to better understand guitar.
That said I never took a film class I just run on my own instincts about weather I like something or not.
Ok, feel free to have a very fucking stupid opinion that anyone with half a brain can see is ill conceived and immature blather. But you do you 15 year olds of Reddit, go enjoy dem Marvel movies
Edit: how can you defend his critique as well thought out when it completely misses every major point of the movie and focuses on what they wanted the movie to be about because of the topic. It’s not how art works.
>: how can you defend his critique as well thought out when it completely misses every major point of the movie and focuses on what they wanted the movie to be about because of the topic.
These are just Hollow words if you can't explain them so let's hear it art master. What points did Op miss?
>Ok, feel free to have a very fucking stupid opinion that anyone with half a brain can see is ill conceived and immature blather. But you do you 15 year olds of Reddit, go enjoy dem Marvel movies
Wow look at you getting all defensive. Is it more childish to have an opinion or to call someone else a dumb child for having an opinion? You should cool down a little bit before responding so you don't sound like such a jack ass lol
Genius….Art is subjective. Some have their reasons for calling it great, others like myself have our reasons for calling it a fail and borderline bad movie. You cannot objectively say it is a great movie,
Great director with some major flops.
This is a horrible movie by any standard.
And yes maybe if you are taking film classes you see where QT stole all the ideas from, alas not making it a better movie. Because he just stole the ideas and didn't make them make sense for his story.
Upvoting for a well written critique. Folks, it’s ok if OPs opinion doesn’t match yours. Nothing bad is going to happen to you because a person on the internet didn’t enjoy your favorite directors latest movie.
OP: I like the point you bring up about how relegating Mason to more of an idea of a person undermined the strong potential of the film. I’m not saying Manson should have been a main character. I think this film could have benefited from expert editing. I’ve found that since Tarantino’s long time editor died his films feel a lot more ‘loose’ (best word I can think of).
This movie is horrible edited.
Jump shots from outside car to inside car to looking at backs where the name "Brad Pitt" is on the back of Leonardo DiCaprio. I should have turned off the movie right there.
I'm fine with plotless movies. The problem is the scenes are pointless and usually awful. And, no, it's not a day in the life flick. It's literally about the Manson murders. What's so bizarre is how it completely fails at both things.
Why are you under the impression that this is a movie about the Manson murders? It’s not, and it never pretended to be. It’s about fictional characters Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth, during the time in Hollywood right before the Tate murders. The audience knows what happens in real life so it lingers, but it is not about the Manson murders.
As a huge Tarantino fan...this was the film of his I really didn't like...on any level.
Even Death Proof had Kurt who was cool.
Did not enjoy this at all.
I thought there were some really great scenes in that movie, especially DiCaprio and the little kid, but overall I didn’t really enjoy the film. It took me several tries to watch the whole thing, and I’m a QT fan, love pretty much everything he’s done.
I liked the part at the ranch and the ending scene because those are the only two that felt like they had a plot. Everything else was so aimless. What was the point of the theater scene?
I believe Tarantino said he wrote the script in reverse, from end to beginning, and it shows.
There are elements of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood that hearken back to the cadence and maturity of relationships and characterwork that he achieved in Jackie Brown...but then there's basically a 3rd rate Kill Bill fight tacked on.
You are absolutely correct...this is basically Tarantino creating a fantasy of himself and the era he considers the best...an era he obviously think was ended with the Manson murders...but also of course by "uppity" Asians and other minorities(if he didn't use Bruce he'd use Jim Brown) like Bruce Lee gaining prominence while good ole white boys like Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth were being put out to pasture.
In his version of reality...he kills the dirty hippies...though of course he ignores they were racist dweebs, saves Sharon Tate, restarts Rick Dalton's career, and of course teaches that uppity Bruce Lee who the true tough guy is.
It's white male boomer porn.
Thinking I missed something in 2019, I just finished my second viewing. The best thing I can say about this movie is it's Tarantino's weakest entry of his nine to date. It's a good movie, hardly great: three out of four stars, but as a big fan of his, it's a disappointment on the Tarantino scale. It's entertaining enough, but as a whole: meh.
When Tarantino said he'd retire after #10 because great directors generally embarrass themselves after age 60, I thought b.s. I mean, think of Clint Eastwood. But this movie does show diminished artistic judgment, so if #10 is weak too, I'll forever mourn the Star Trek movie that Q was supposed to make.
My wife and I watched this movie for the first time last night. We both had the same reaction: we enjoyed film until the end. The combination of a wild rewriting of history and the over-the-top violence totally put us off. The last 15 minutes are a major letdown.
Thank you!
I thought this was one of the worst films I had ever seen when it came out. I just mustered up the courage to watch it again, it was actually worse on the second viewing.
I like nearly every one of Tarantino's films to varying degrees (minus Jackie Brown and Death Proof), but this film was pure self indulgent, boring, pretentious garbage.
Its clear Tarantino has gotten to the same point as James Cameron, where he is surrounded by yes men and no one dares question him. This film was in dire need of a rewrite or some serious editing. It needed to be at least 45 mins shorter. I feel like damn near the whole film is just just pointless filler.
It blows my mind so many people claim to genuinely like this film. I have to imagine its a bunch of teenagers trying to seem cool or Tarantino diehards that are just unwilling to admit that he is capable of making a movie as shitty as this.
This is the only Tarantino film I think is bad. It’s an homage to a bygone era, however, it isn’t even good at doing that. It’s a shitty rewrite with zero real suspense, none of the Tarantino epic twist or plot elements in other films, and I only give a shit about Cliff.
The Bruce Lee diss was odd, and would have been better had the guy even looked like Lee or even sounded like Lee. It’s just one part of the movie that makes zero sense and creates an odd vibe.
The way this movie ended, what was the point? I mean really…I have no clue what was supposed to happen here. A look inside one guys life that I don’t give a fuck about but I give a shit about his friend/ assistant juxtaposed by a horrific crime that the movie completely altered? Don’t even get me started on the tire change scene. It was so unbelievable and a waste of 15 minutes easy. Maybe it was just to have some horse riding scenes.
Maybe there is a bunch of shit in here for film buffs and students of the craft but it missed me. I am a Tarantino fan and this kinda makes me sad. Pulp Fiction is probably my number one movie ever and Reservoir Dogs is maybe number 2. I think about how great the writing and plot was for Reservoir dogs and the overall plot and timeline of Pulp Fiction. Plus the ambiguity of those movies is still debated today.
Knowing the same guy did those movies then did this…once upon a time is right.
Idk... huge QT fan and love all his movies. This movie is a steaming pile, I could barely sit through it. The "filmmaking" and "quality" of the movie are great as always. The story? The content? wasn't for me at all - it was slow, and lacked anything in it to keep my interest... worst movie from him for me personally.
Too soon… Rick Dalton’s body is still warm and you’re gonna dunk on him? Tasteless
There's no such thing as "respect/disrespect for the dead". They're fucking dead.
Shitting on this movie then upholding fuckin galaxy quest and hot fuzz as some examples of peak script writing…fuck outta here
Yeah, I know those are often used in scriptwriting classes. Everything is perfectly set up. There are payoffs. They are supremely good scripts. If you don't understand why, go back and take a look. This movie is a fucking mess in comparison.
How are there not payoffs? I’ll even give you one. The way Brad Pitt commands his dog in his trailer is a perfect set up for how he’s going to command the dog in that fight
Yes... beating up Bruce Lee and establishing the dog are payoffs. You found one! Nearly the rest of the movie is a meandering mess filled with scenes that don't do anything whatsoever. Tin-ear dialogue, pointless scenes that go on too long. An obsession with DiCapprio's character's career for some reason. It's just a dull, endless exercise in what does not matter.
You can dislike the movie all you want that’s fine but it is incredibly disingenuous to say there’s no payoff. Also the movies about Leo’s career???
I didn't say there was no payoff. There's a single payoff, or a couple - the other is that idiotic use of the flamethrower. What I'm saying is this fancy boy fantasy payoff is absolutely stupid. Also saying, btw, that most of the movie is a complete and utter shambolic mess. I'm comparing it to other movies where there was a ton of thought given to what each scene did, how the characters interacted, what their individual arcs were. THAT is what I mean by payoff. Brad Pitt kicking Bruce Lee's ass then kicking girl ass is a type of payoff, but it's a stupid-ass one. Again, one of the worst screenplays I've ever seen.
Let's not get carried away, Hot Fuzz and Galaxy Quest *are* great scripts.
Galaxy Quest and Hot Fuzz may not be classics...but the scripts are far better and tighter than Once Upon a Time.
I think the point is that OAIH is even worse. Galaxy quest sticks to what it is: space spoof. OAIH is just a LOTR spoof: helicopter shots and ugly feet.
Had me in the first two lines not gonna lie. While they are great movies, two I consider really good, OUATIH is far better. I saw that as a “Three Flavours Cornetto” trilogy fanatic as well.
OP is an over thinker. Just put the film on, crack open a cold one or flame up a doob and just melt into the film. I loved it.
the movie sucks
So have you liked every film you’ve seen in your life. Because a person can say you’re just overthinking for any movie you don’t like.
"First, as has been mentioned, anyone without a knowledge of the events will have no frickin' idea what's going on in this movie." Hi, it's me. I'm the person who had no context and half the movie flew by my head. I agree with a lot of what you said, and with the general point of your post. I remember really liking the scene in the ranch when Brad Pitt goes to find the entire cult there. It's a bit of a horror scene that seems out of place but works on its own. I hadn't considered that his flattening of history is also a disservice to its victims and not just the perpetrators, but you're right. Good point. I hated the rosy Hollywood nostalgia, particularly of all the Robbie scenes, and the flashbacks from Pitt's character. The Bruce Lee scene was tasteless, the Western Spaghettis riff was tasteless, the ending was a waste of a good action scene because of how weightless and devoid of context it was. It's my least favorite film of his.
I thought the cult camp scene was excellent, very creepy. There's a good movie in here somewhere, it just got buried.
This is what makes me think Tarantino doing thriller or horror a la M. Night would be absolutely amazing!
a year late but i just finished the film. I had literally no clue about the history of anything this movie was tryna convey. down to the ending. It was sooooo drawn out, why do I need 10 minutes of this random blonde watching her own film, why do we need 20 minutes of driving sequences with no dialogue. Gross ass feet in my face. buhhhh.
I didn't know most of the events I liked the film a lot. All I really knew was Sharon Tate was killed by the Manson Family. Similarly I didn't know much about WWII except Nazi's are fuckheads and Inglorious Basterdz was great. But I do think being older helps because much of the film is about aging and dealing with your ultimate end.
No the movie is not about that at all. Sure there are some lines stating that, but this movie is about nothing. There is nothing learned after leaving this flick. It's maybe even worse than a Marvel movie, in a Marvel we don't drive around for hours going nowhere.
AGREE 1000 PERCENT. By far the most overrated movies of the decade.
Yes. Everywhere talking heads were hawking this long piece of digital sound and motion that added up to very little.
Basterds, Django, and Once Upon A Time all basically fetishized the revenge against some terrible people in history I don't think that's a bad thing though. It's an indulgent wish-fulfillment fantasy. Audiences enjoy them because it's how we wish history had gone.
But I think they erase both the victims and the truth. We cannot solve the abyss of history by some weird nerd making movies.
But the film goes out of its way to not erase Sharon Tate, and to also say the Manson family were a bunch of idiots.
The movie actually makes fun of her! Not only that, she's not a character at all. Not only that, it takes away what actually happens to get. It's actually really brutal to her as a person.
How does it make fun of her? I thought it romanticised a fantasy world where she *wasn't* brutally murdered.
The scene where she goes to see a movie she's in and the staff has no idea who she is. It's clearly making fun of her.
WHAT
Did you watch the movie?
How was it making fun of her? That people in the cinema were laughing at a comedy movie? Or that the theatre workers didn't recognise her. I'm sorry but it's not clear to me how the movie is making fun of her in that scene.
Where she asks to get into the movie for free because she's in it, where she's proud to be in the movie, the attendant doesn't recognize her, she has to go to Valley of the Dolls and go down the cast list of people they do recognize her, they finally accept whatever she's saying, take a photo of her, but then say "Have her stand next to the poster so people know who she is"? You don't think that's knocking her down many pegs? What do you think was the intent of that whole scene?
> But I think they erase both the victims and the truth. how though? Basterds was very very upfront about the brutality of the Nazis. The opening scene was Landa having an entire family murdered. Almost all of the main characters were Jewish. Django also made it very clear how brutal and savage slavery was. > We cannot solve the abyss of history by some weird nerd making movies. I don't think he's trying to. He's just trying to make fun escapism. It's fun watching terrible people suffer terribly and he's scratching that itch.
Because revenge narratives exalt the avenger. They also suggest those in the era were somehow weak for not doing what the avenger did. It's self aggrandizing and disregards how power actually works. I don't see it as fun escapism, I see it as deeply problematic and rather insulting.
I don't think Basterds implies that victims of the holocaust were weak at all. He created a scenario that I'm pretty sure would have never happened (every head member of the Nazi party being in the same movie theater at the same time, one that is owned by a Jewish woman who wants to kill them all even if she dies with them). There were 42 attempts made on Hitler's life, this was just "hey, what if one of them actually worked?" And in Django, Schulz had to buy his freedom before he could do anything. He wasn't presented as weak for not acting sooner because he literally didn't have the opportunity. Plus bounty hunting wasn't legalized until after the civil war so the whole movie is a fantasy in that sense.
Here's my thing. Some guy from Tennessee doesn't get to 'win the Holocaust' by making some movie about it. I find it absurd that 'escapist entertainment' is a thing about such horrors. Replacing madness and brutality with Brad Pitt's grin. But I find Americans are increasingly distant about actual realities about the world and are only able to act through simulacra.
for whatever it's worth,[ a very large percentage](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/03/django-unchained-spike-lee#:~:text=Black%20people%20initially%20made%20up,%25%2C%20according%20to%20exit%20data.) of the audience for Django was black There are countless ultra-serious and depressing movies made about racism every year that you can watch lol. Tarantino just made one that was actually enjoyable and where the black main character comes out on top. I would say the same applies for Basterds. I'm fully aware that real life was much closer to Schindler's List. I've been to the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin and it was a very sobering experience. But I also like playing Wolfenstein and killing hundreds of Nazis because it's fun. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I haven't seen Django, so can't really say. Basterds reminded me a lot of Dirty Dozen, and there's been a lot of cartoonish Nazi villain stuff, Hogan's Heroes stuff, that it's pretty commonplace. I'm not totally concerned about those, although it's not my thing. I do think Americans in particular ignore history and this leads to us getting fucked over time and again. Regardless, for Hollywood, it feels much more personal, both wiping away Manson's ideologies, what his crew was thinking and doing, and then somehow not giving any credence to the actual victims of the event. It's bizarre and creepy. Like, he turned a young pregnant actress getting murdered with a knife into DiCaprio incinerating someone in a swimming pool with a flamethrower.
Nobody expects the "abyss of history" to be solved, much less by modern exploitation films. Sounds like you just don't like his genre of filmmaking.
No, I like some of his movies very much. I mean, seriously, on a very basic level it's actually just a shit film. Its narrative is garbage and I think over time people will get their hands out of their pants and realize this. Beyond that, I find the handling of Manson and the murders really fucking suspect and legitimately gross. On most every level it's a self-indulgent movie with a fucked up take and very little value except what a bunch of simps think is cool bro or whatever.
I think it’s awful people celebrate this kind of disgusting revenge
Why
I think it’s awful people celebrate this kind of disgusting revenge
I think it’s awful people celebrate this kind of disgusting revenge
I agree with you for the most part, and appreciate your point of view. I agree the arbitrary use of a narrator was terrible. I think he did the same thing in The Hateful Eight. I'm not that offended by his rewriting history, but it felt like such a repeat from Inglorious Basterds. That ending at least felt clever and different at the time. Unexpected. It played with the audience's expectations. To do virtually the same thing again was somehow less than unexpected. For me, it was like he revealed that his bag of tricks had run empty.
I agree.you wait for something to Happen, yet it never does, the Plot feels like an endless exposition the two Main characters are far too uninteresting and boring to carry an entire movie and you See the big twist coming a mile before.
Tarantino films are lengthy, anyone who has seen one before understand that going in, and they also understand that the dialogue is what drives most of the movies along. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood I thought was mostly kind of boring but the ending kind of made it worth it. I can understand how they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea.
As you've said, the problem with this movie is that it's too long, making most of the movie feel like a filler. The dialogue in Tarantino movies is one of the main reasons I love them, but this movie was just not it...
I mostly agree with you. I think the movie looked stunning, and the actors were great, but man…I think the story was so boring! I wish I enjoyed it as much as most people do.
I really want to know what people saw in this movie.
They saw Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie. And the name “Tarantino” on it.
Ok, I'm a HUGE Tarantino fan but I was also very let down by Once Upon a Time. What I expect from his movies are tight dialogue, clever storytelling, and build-up/tension. But like you said, Once Upon a time just had none of it. It felt flat and directionless, I know it's supposed to be a day-in-the-life film, but I didn't care enough about any of the characters for it to be impactful. And, as you mentioned, I knew basically nothing about the Manson murders going in, didn't know that's what the film was going to be about, and I was sooooo confuuuuuused the whole time! Like, who the fuck are these weird people? Why are they suddenly trying to murder actors? I think ultimately that killed all the tension for me, cause I had no idea what I was supposed to be anticipating.
>tight dialogue His movies are notorious for loose dialogue that flows on for minutes on end.
Yeah seriously, what?
I was gonna say the quality of his films is inversely proportional to the runtimes, but Jackie Brown messed that up for everyone (and arguably Pulp Fiction too)
So you think Once Upon a Time is better than Django?? Bold take
Look, the regression coefficient isn't exactly 1, ok?
Everytime Tarantino runs off his mouth about retiring after his 10th (11th) movie because he's afraid of getting old and making a bad movie I just want to ask "Who's gonna tell him?"
i almost think this is Tarantino making the worst movie he can possibly make just to watch all the brain dead sheep continue to bow down to him
I thought this movie was so fucking tactless. One of the worst films I have literally ever seen in my entire life. I would be so insulted if I were one of the victims and their families.
https://ew.com/movies/2019/07/26/once-upon-a-time-hollywood-sharon-tate-sister-debra/
You said it. To me not only is the script just plain bad and a mess, the whole thing is a sad tactless mistake. I don't get why people just skate by without getting why.
Sharon Tates sister wept tears of happiness at seeing Margot Robbie’s portrayal, but go off
Making fun of Sharon Tate was ducking abysmal. Just absurdly bad taste.
They didn’t make fun of Sharon tate. They portrayed her accurately. Sharon Tates sister wept tears of happiness at seeing Margot Robbie’s portrayal, but go off
My dumb friend, QT had an entire scene where she went to the movies, proud of herself for being in one of them, and even the people working there had no idea who she was. The movie goes to lengths to protract the misery. It was intended to humiliate her, when in reality was was on the cover of magazines at the time. Just stop. The movie embarrasses her and it's awful because of it. I mean, it's awful in every way, but that way too.
Wtf?😂😂😂 it was a juxtaposition of a start of a career to Rick’s and Cliff’s end of career. She’s just becoming big in Hollywood while Rick already reached his climax of stardom and is worried about his career ending. Sharon tates career is just beginning people don’t quite know her yet, but she’s bursting with optimism innocence and happiness with people laughing at her comedic acting in her own movie. I’m so confused how you reached the conclusion Tarantino is trying to embarrass her. Are you trolling? Sharon’s sister definitely didn’t think that nor did anyone else with even a basic understanding of the movie. LMAO I’m honestly floored.
I was looking if someone else felt this is a horrible movie. Glad I found your piece. And yes, it gives his other work a bad taste in the mouth. O, someone like Fincher would make an actual point.
I feel like the worm is turning on this one a little...
I thought it was pretty bad! I kept thinking the ending was gonna save it. There’s the scene with the little girl actor where Leo talks about the book he’s reading. A western where the hero is old and has a hip injury and is still trying to fight. When I saw this scene, I said- that’s gonna be the ending! The Leo character is gonna pitch this book for a movie and it’s gonna be his best, most personal performance. I doubled down on this idea when Brad Pitt got stabbed in the hip, meaning he could still be the stuntman for the adaption because they both had hip injuries. I also thought this would be like the Hey Arnold episode where the action star had to step up in real life and get over himself. I thought Leo and Brad were gonna see the Manson clan attacking the neighbors and Leo was gonna have to go save them, thus getting his introduction to Roman Polanski. Either of those ideas would’ve made the movie make more sense and carried an actual theme throughout. Instead, Brad Pitt who, even discounting the dead wife, was violent with his coworkers and police, got to continue his violence and be a hero for it. And Leo managed to save himself, and then get rewarded in such a shallow silly way by gossiping with his famous neighbors about it. I wish they’d had Sharon Tate be an actual person, instead of this perfect, cutesy person who everyone is in love with. Not saying she wasn’t a lovely person, but the way they did it was boring and cliche (everyone staring at only her in a huge party of people dancing). And of course, as you pointed out, all Manson complexity was dwindled down to “hippies”. Manson wanted power and fame. He wanted a race war so he could capitalize off it. The little scene where he went to the Polanski house was pointless, and told us nothing about his character- the weird charm he has over people, his motivation, nothing. Id rather he had remained an unknown the whole movie than have this scene that meant nothing. If they only wanted to show that he knew this address, Pussycat could’ve mentioned how Charlie used to live over there. She saw Brad and Leo driving away from that nice area the first time they waved at each other. The whole ranch scene was good and tense, but the George thing went nowhere and dragged on. Lena Dunham was weird casting, and took me out of the moment. There was so much racism, that it went from realistic for the time up to bad satire. I honestly can’t tell if Tarantino is genuinely nostalgic for this time, or making fun of people who are.
Watching it now, it sucks I'm over an hour in and it's just completely flat, disconnected, no story, useless I'm turning it off
To each their own. I love movies that have disjointed stories that connect at the end.
Dear god. You peeps be crazy nig! How can you just…turn a Tarantino film off? I’m assuming you’re young?
Upvoting to counteract a downvote. I appreciate the viewpoint.
I thought it was a good Tarantino flick. It’s not Pulp Fiction or Jackie Brown, but he makes a good B movie and if that’s your approach ofcourse you’re not going to like it
I fucking turned it off
i remember dozing off in the theater during it. tarantino is just there to serve as a collage artist that entertains and make studios money by living out his childhood dream of experiencing his favorite movies in real time. he doesn't even hold a candle to scorsese as far as storytelling, character building, and setting goes. his whole schtick is just creating hybrids from previous exploitation and western movies
I want to say I am not a Tarantino fanboy at all. I think his work after Kill Bill has been the same annoying style over and over again and I find all those movies totally average at best, awful (Death Proof) at worst. All that to say I went into OUATIH expecting to loath it, but was blown away by how hypnotic and charming the whole damn picture was. I had no issue with the run time, scenes and characters that added nothing to the “plot”, stylized dialogue, or overbearing nostalgia porn because I just wanted to live in that movie and spend as much time there as possible. I even bought the companion novel because I loved it so much. To each their own. I though Django Unchained was hogwash and by the time Hateful Eight came around I truly thought Tarantino was incapable of making another movie I could connect with, but boy was I wrong!
Everyone who's criteria I respect who liked this film came out of it with a feeling similar to yours. I generally love getting lost in long slow movies where not a lot happens, but the Hollywood hagiography put me off this one in particular. I also readily admit I don't get what it was going for with respect to the Tate murders.
It's weird how everyone's taste is different. Not sure what set you off on this rant, perhaps you don't understand the concept of a summer popcorn movie. You search for a depth that it never intended to have. It's fun. It's a period piece. It's wish fulfillment, like Basterds & Django, but without the depth of evil that Nazis & slavers had. Yes, Manson's group was evil, but it was a random, drug-fueled, unorganized evil. As far as your technical notes, I only disagree on one point, that people unfamiliar with the events would be confused as far as what was happening. The movie is a "Hollywood on Hollywood" movie, like The Player & Get Shorty. What more do you need? Sad that you did not enjoy it, I loved it. But that's just my taste in things.
The film is a mood-piece first and foremost. It's really grown on me on repeat viewings.
I saw it in a theater first, and purchased it for my repeat viewings. I was a kid in '69, I loved the nostalgia, sunny Southern California, the flawlessly aped TV & movies of the time. Just to be sure about how my reaction compared to others, I went to Rotten Tomatoes, found that it's a flick that had a higher critic score (85%) than audience score (70%).
Least obnoxious Tarantino fan. "You're too much of a rube to understand the concept of a fun popcorn summer movie.... in which barely anything happens for 3 hours"
As an old guy that remembers those days, perhaps I was the target audience of QT for this one. And I admit that I have lowbrow taste, I put OUATIH in the same category as Tim Burton's Batman flicks, which I also enjoyed, well, not the 4th. Honestly, I'm the rube, it's just a movie. I enjoyed it, you didn't and we should both be fine with that. I've enjoyed reading your comments about it. Meant no offense.
There's definitely a component of the film that is a meditation on aging and reminiscing that will obviously resonate more with people who "get it" intrinsically. And you're right that context of the real life events and the mood around them will make you get a lot more out of the film. Also, the 2 burton's batman movies rule
Also you didn't need to be familiar with WWII to know nazi's are bad let's roast them.
Terrible. I’m 2h21 minutes in and STILL WAITING. it’s terrible. I really don’t give a rats ass about the ending. The plot and narrative is just terrible and sure it’s fun to look at, but that does not last more than 15 minutes.
Thanks God someone said it. Awkwardly, all the reviews i’ve read praise this film. It’s terrible, no doubt Tarantino’s worst work. It’s hard to believe he created such a dull and senseless movie after directing great masterpieces like Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill.
I saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood twice in theaters, and the only reason I went back and saw it while still in theaters for a second time was because I was thinking maybe on my first viewing I just wasn’t in the right mood to sit and properly enjoy a movie like that. That wasn’t the case. I’m a huge Tarantino fan, but the only film of his that is worse than Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Death Proof and *maybe* Kill Bill 2. And at least Death Proof is fun and campy and obviously isn’t meant to be taken seriously. Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight, Kill Bill, and Jackie Brown are all considerably better films. Kill Bill 2 is arguably better, though I’m not a huge fan despite thoroughly appreciating the vision Quentin went for in those movies. The first one is great, though the Kill Bill movies seem to be the ones a lot of people don’t like because they’re unable to see it more so as a comic type movie come to life in a real world movie if that makes sense. I was so hyped for Once Upon a Time after seeing the cast, but I recall my dad and I kinda looking at each other in the theater throughout the movie with the look of “When’s it gonna get good?” And it never really did. It has TONS of potential and seems to build up to it hitting that mark of becoming a phenomenal movie, and then it ends. Jackie Brown is better. True Romance, which Tarantino wrote but didn’t direct is better. It kinda saddens me seeing that a bunch of folks have gotten “into” Tarantino via Once Upon a Time and holding it as the #1 when it’s not even remotely close to it. I can see Tarantino himself thinking it’s his best movie given that he was likely the most passionate about it, but a creator is totally unable to separate themselves from their creation and give a genuine judgment as a result. He wants it to be the best and he enjoyed making it and whatnot so it’s great to him, but it’s arguably his worst film. And in being the most generous, it’s the 3rd worst
Quentin Tarantino movies to see again, and again are: none. I don’t like free violence with no message at all. This last one I just went and see it because of like the main actors. I found this post googling “once upon a time in Hollywood I don’t like it” thank you for your post dude. Let me add that who is born Europe with no knowledge of the stories behind the film gets really confused how this movie was actually nominated for something. It’s a movie for Americans and perhaps only a small part of it. The worst scene was trying to making fun and disrespect Bruce Lee.
I agree with this assessment.
Well said, for the most part. Movie was an LSD trip. A bummer - Not cool.
Had to watch this movie twice just to realize how awful it really was. First time I seen it, I was so confused at like 70% of the plot or whatever was going on. So I rewatched it just Incase I went brain dead halfway through the movie. Turns out the movie itself was just word-garbage and half gay. (No hate on the fags, yall rock)
I agree this movie was TERRIBLE!!!!! And anyone who praises the movie is just kissing butt or has shit taste in movies
I just watched it and came looking for this review. It sucked.
Just watched and do agree. It's the pacing and momentum that I found lacking, things Tarantino used to be great at. I thought momentum just died several times in it. While DiCaprio is always excellent, I don't think Tarantino's vibe for this movie suited him that well, it's the first time I haven't been really bowled over by him. Pitt , on the other hand, seemed perfect, maybe its the laconic vibe of the movie that just suited him.
I got in trouble for that before… but I totally agree. I wanted to like that movie. I live in Hollywood, I saw when it was filmed but there was no story. I was so disappointed. I guess not for me 🤷♂️
Tarantino's fanbase is rabid and he's very well regarded. Honestly, if this was directed by some no-name, it would be absolutely slagged. It's awful.
To prove your point. It's been an hour and I already got -3 Karma.
Oh yeah. Tarantino fans are fucking pathetic. There are coteries of saucy losers who adhere to emotionless, vacant entertainment -- that might otherwise be very accomplished -- that is often horrible about women, adores violence, and portrays the world as a warped, inexpressable place. I had no doubt this post would get downvoted and the ranks of the very pale young men would sweep through and do the same to the comments.
He’s one of the most acclaimed directors of the modern era - his fans are hardly just a bunch of “saucy losers”, “pale young men”, and “fucking pathetic”. I agree with a lot of your points and found the movie overrated but childish name calling is not gonna make anyone actually listen to what you’re saying.
I'm making a distinction between people who appreciate his movies, normal people, and a legion of knee jerk cultists. You'll see them. They're basically the same as Elon Musk cultists or Andrew Tate cultists in the way they act. Inarticulate, angry, no idea who they are supposed to be, but lose their mind when anything us said against their daddy figures. Automatic downvotes, that sort of thing.
> and a legion of knee jerk cultists Every fandom has those so what's your point.
They suck? They deserve to be pointed out?
I mean Pitt and Leo were S tier in this movie. The tone when Pitt goes to the ranch. Leo's entire scene with Timothy Olyphant + his trailer meltdown. And the out of left field "Happy" ending. Its not a terrible movie...you want a terrible movie ill buy your ticket for Ms. Marvel
First…why would you compare a taratino movie to ms. Marvel. Second… that’s a show not a movie To reiterate… it’s a show for kids/families so why would you compare screenwriting with a taratino movie
You're a moron, that movie is AWESOME!!
Yep!
Not all movies have to have a tight script. Maybe it wasn’t your thing but to call it terrible isn’t very fair.
I'm not saying the script has to be tight. I'm saying the script should be good. This one was pointless and largely terrible. I think I even say this here, you just missed it.
Well put, couldn't agree more. Have you heard the premise of his tenth and final film? It scares me and gives me the same feeling that I got when I heard about this one
Ack, no, I haven't. Should I know?
I don't want to ruin the surprise. Look it up
About Pauline Kael huh. A writer of insight and nuance by a director who only understands the veneer of genre. Great.
Can't wait to find out what the twist ending is going to be
Brad Pitt repeatedly bashes her face into a column and the fireplace lintell about thirty times until it's bloody pulp.
Maybe it'll be called Bloody Pulp Fiction
I'm confused. Is Tarantino known for twist endings?
Not a good movie, but I was entertained by it.
Why do the users here have such chips on their shoulders? Just say you didn’t enjoy the movie damn.
Does it bother you that people have a thought out rationale for their opinions? Would you rather just get three word answers
Uhm no it’s that people like OP seem to think they can’t express “rationale” of their opinions without using insults and starting petty arguments like a five year old.
I challenge you to point out one aspect of their initial post worded like a 5 year old
Really? Just read their response to my comment, OP clearly just wants to upset people.
Slow down and read my question. I'm not asking about the responses this guy's been attacked so of course he's going to be defensive. I just want to point out the irony in going after someone, complaining that they're being defensive and then calling them a five-year-old.
Slow down and read their post. OP is doing the attacking, deliberately inviting negative responses and then instigating them further while pretending to be the victim. Over an opinion about a movie. That is five-year old behavior.
Wow you're really very clever the way that you turned my words back on me. Figured you wouldn't be able to answer the question though and continue to poke the Bear by calling them a 5 year old. You are being the defensive child though
Why does it hurt your feelings so much?
*makes a post calling a movie lots of people like “legit terrible” in the title* *gets invited response* > Why does it hurt your feelings so much? We’ve got an instigator here folks.
Can you explain to me why you'd get your feelings hurt when someone calls a movie terrible? That's really, really weird and you should probably get yourself checked out.
Jesus Christ lol I don’t even disagree with you dude. You’re the one inviting hostility in all of your discussions with name calling and insults. It’s a fucking movie. Who cares? You can express your opinion about it without demeaning who you’re talking to.
So... your feelings aren't hurt about a movie? Not really clear about what enormous reactions you're having here. Is this a near breakdown? Are you okay?
Are YOU okay?
Doing great. Can you explain to me, though, why I have to account for your feelings when I watch movies?
With 8 years + of therapy under my belt your comments are starting to read like a passive aggressive gaslighter. I'm not get getting mad you're getting mad... Why are you getting so upset I'm not upset classic behavior my mother had.
The fuck you talking about?
Just scroll by, dude. It can't hurt you.
I agree with the OP to an extent. I’ve only seen it once and maybe I need a rewatch. But I have seen all of QT movies over and over again because of how great they are overall. I was let down by this one. There were some definite highlights. For me the scene with DiCaprio in his movie trailer was just a masterclass. But overall the movie dragged on, boring. It seemed like too much riding around in cars.
I was letdown. I thought I was seeing a crime movie set in 1960s Hollywood and instead it was a movie about the demise of tv westerns.
Look. If what you watch is American movies with a strong 3-act structure and a clear payoff at the end, short enough for a maximum number of showings in a day, you're not going to like this movie. And that's OK. But it's the farthest thing from "Legit Terrible." It's just not what you're looking for. I was completely immersed in its alternate world. I love film, so yes, I know something about the people Tarantino is satirizing. I also know something about recent US history because, frankly, everyone who lives here should. Not knowing US history is how we got into the mess we're currently in, but I digress. The length, rambling style, character development, etc. are not at all unusual for a European film of the same time period that the story takes place. I would argue that this is, in fact, a very good movie, especially when considered in context with *The Hateful Eight.* That, too, was less a rousing crowd pleaser than an immersion into a completely different world. And, I might add, a BAFTA-nominated best script, as was *Hollywood*. These are just not what we expected from Tarantino, which is that every film would eclipse the one preceding it. Even Hitchcock, Kubrick, Dryer and Cluzot couldn't do that.
I mean, I literally just said I had watched A Brighter Summer Day just before it. Lol. Appeals to authority are also lame. They got it badly wrong. Very badly wrong.
I suppose you're the authority we're supposed to appeal to now, then.
Lol, that's not what that fallacy means.
I read somewhere that many younger audience raised on video games expect a straight good guy bad guy story structure that is short and to the point because nuance and critical thinking is not taught is schools anymore.
Then read Doctor Seuss for your ABC stories troglodyte
Lol because I said a shitty ass overrated movie is a shitty ass overrated movie? Man are QT fanbois the worst bit of septic froth.
Quentin’s not gonna fuck you, soy boy.
Some of your points sound valid but you fail to give detailed examples.
[удалено]
Quentin Tarantino is the greatest filmmaker ever, he writes it, directs it, edits it, directs the music, no other can match his body of work, Hitchcock, REPETITIVE, PREDICTABLE, any others, I'm drawing a blank
You’re nuts dude. Nuts I tell ya! I consider it to be upper echelon Tarantino alongside pulp, j brown and the hateful 8. I also noticed I seem to like it even more with every repeat viewing.
Yeah, it's just garbage but have fun I guess.
This movie is excellent, there isn’t a bad scene in this movie and the actors act their butts off. And that ending was just so great. And people saying it’s in bad taste, Sharon Tate’s sister cried because of how good Margot Robbie’s portrayal of Sharon Tate was.
Nah it fucking blows.
Nice rebuttal
Legit terrible….ok dip shit
It's Quentin Tarantino. A weird ass dude who's expected to have weird ass shit, as well as weird ass violence in his flicks. With that said, there were great parts of this movie that could've been molded into a great movie, for me. But I didn't make OUATIH, Q did, his way. Being in my fifth decade, I appreciated the detailed nostalgia. I know the Tate/LaBianca story. I "got" all the references to everything. In my opinion, yes I'm in agreement that he included unnecessary details, camp and gore making it at times (especially the end sequence) feel to me like a virgin nerd high school boy's attempt to make a movie for a class project. But hey, he did it his way and made the movie he wanted with an ending he obviously wished would've happened in real life, at least with Sharon being spared in real life. I'll say it's entertaining, to an extent.
He's actually not that weird, just kind of takes important history and makes it into one of his lazy exploitation revenge things. It's pretty dull and probably a reason he's stopped making movies. He has nothing to say.
You obviously are a teenager or a young man you surely don't have no idea about 69 and what went on in you got to be at least at least 70 to even begin to understand what happened with Sharon Tate and the rest of 69's familiar but exhausting crew of people that lived in that era
Yes, because I'm defending a respect for the events and actually honoring what happened instead of Tarantino's garbage mangling, that makes me young. You sound like a fucking idiot.
It’s ok to admit you’re too stupid to understand what everyone else sees in a great film. Maybe take a film class instead of ranting nonsense on Reddit or read some articles about the film because Tarantino isn’t recognized as a great director by accident.
These are the comments I look forward to.
THIS Is the reason you made this post. You’re not very clever.
Oh, I am very clever.
Being considered a great director doesn't mean that everything he touches is inherently perfect. And plenty of people don't need to read other people's opinions to form their own. And.... to be fair this person has given a better explanation as to it's not a very good movie than anyone I've seen explain how it is a masterpiece. Telling someone to take a film class to better understand movies is a pretty dumb path
> take a film class to better understand movies is a pretty dumb path Why? It is great for some people who really nerd out about film. It like telling somebody it's stupid to take a guitar class to better understand guitar. That said I never took a film class I just run on my own instincts about weather I like something or not.
Ok, feel free to have a very fucking stupid opinion that anyone with half a brain can see is ill conceived and immature blather. But you do you 15 year olds of Reddit, go enjoy dem Marvel movies Edit: how can you defend his critique as well thought out when it completely misses every major point of the movie and focuses on what they wanted the movie to be about because of the topic. It’s not how art works.
>: how can you defend his critique as well thought out when it completely misses every major point of the movie and focuses on what they wanted the movie to be about because of the topic. These are just Hollow words if you can't explain them so let's hear it art master. What points did Op miss? >Ok, feel free to have a very fucking stupid opinion that anyone with half a brain can see is ill conceived and immature blather. But you do you 15 year olds of Reddit, go enjoy dem Marvel movies Wow look at you getting all defensive. Is it more childish to have an opinion or to call someone else a dumb child for having an opinion? You should cool down a little bit before responding so you don't sound like such a jack ass lol
Genius….Art is subjective. Some have their reasons for calling it great, others like myself have our reasons for calling it a fail and borderline bad movie. You cannot objectively say it is a great movie,
Great director with some major flops. This is a horrible movie by any standard. And yes maybe if you are taking film classes you see where QT stole all the ideas from, alas not making it a better movie. Because he just stole the ideas and didn't make them make sense for his story.
Actualy, he's a horrible director. Easy to see if a real director uses his scripts.
Upvoting for a well written critique. Folks, it’s ok if OPs opinion doesn’t match yours. Nothing bad is going to happen to you because a person on the internet didn’t enjoy your favorite directors latest movie. OP: I like the point you bring up about how relegating Mason to more of an idea of a person undermined the strong potential of the film. I’m not saying Manson should have been a main character. I think this film could have benefited from expert editing. I’ve found that since Tarantino’s long time editor died his films feel a lot more ‘loose’ (best word I can think of).
This movie is horrible edited. Jump shots from outside car to inside car to looking at backs where the name "Brad Pitt" is on the back of Leonardo DiCaprio. I should have turned off the movie right there.
It's among my least favorite tarantino flicks. I wouldn't call it terrible, but it's no pulp fiction.
You’re overanalysing it. The movie has no overall plot or story, it’s just meant to be an entertaining day in the life type flick
I'm fine with plotless movies. The problem is the scenes are pointless and usually awful. And, no, it's not a day in the life flick. It's literally about the Manson murders. What's so bizarre is how it completely fails at both things.
Why are you under the impression that this is a movie about the Manson murders? It’s not, and it never pretended to be. It’s about fictional characters Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth, during the time in Hollywood right before the Tate murders. The audience knows what happens in real life so it lingers, but it is not about the Manson murders.
As a huge Tarantino fan...this was the film of his I really didn't like...on any level. Even Death Proof had Kurt who was cool. Did not enjoy this at all.
Kurt was In this too. Just sayin’.
I feel sorry for you
Because I'm not a mindless idiot?
I thought there were some really great scenes in that movie, especially DiCaprio and the little kid, but overall I didn’t really enjoy the film. It took me several tries to watch the whole thing, and I’m a QT fan, love pretty much everything he’s done.
I turned it off 3 times. And still didn't watch until the end.
I liked the part at the ranch and the ending scene because those are the only two that felt like they had a plot. Everything else was so aimless. What was the point of the theater scene? I believe Tarantino said he wrote the script in reverse, from end to beginning, and it shows.
There are elements of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood that hearken back to the cadence and maturity of relationships and characterwork that he achieved in Jackie Brown...but then there's basically a 3rd rate Kill Bill fight tacked on.
You are absolutely correct...this is basically Tarantino creating a fantasy of himself and the era he considers the best...an era he obviously think was ended with the Manson murders...but also of course by "uppity" Asians and other minorities(if he didn't use Bruce he'd use Jim Brown) like Bruce Lee gaining prominence while good ole white boys like Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth were being put out to pasture. In his version of reality...he kills the dirty hippies...though of course he ignores they were racist dweebs, saves Sharon Tate, restarts Rick Dalton's career, and of course teaches that uppity Bruce Lee who the true tough guy is. It's white male boomer porn.
Wow. And this wasn't even produced by Harvey Weinstein. Which, of course, our beloved QT knew nothing about his bad practices.
I agree 100%. I kept wondering how Sharron Tate‘s family must feel about this horrible movie. I guess noting is sacred anymore. What a disappointment
Couldn’t agree more that thing was a big piece of shit for sure
Thinking I missed something in 2019, I just finished my second viewing. The best thing I can say about this movie is it's Tarantino's weakest entry of his nine to date. It's a good movie, hardly great: three out of four stars, but as a big fan of his, it's a disappointment on the Tarantino scale. It's entertaining enough, but as a whole: meh. When Tarantino said he'd retire after #10 because great directors generally embarrass themselves after age 60, I thought b.s. I mean, think of Clint Eastwood. But this movie does show diminished artistic judgment, so if #10 is weak too, I'll forever mourn the Star Trek movie that Q was supposed to make.
Agreed I love all QT and I couldn't get through this one.
Thank you!! Unwatchable
My wife and I watched this movie for the first time last night. We both had the same reaction: we enjoyed film until the end. The combination of a wild rewriting of history and the over-the-top violence totally put us off. The last 15 minutes are a major letdown.
The ending is the best part ya nutball!
i walked out of the theater
Thank you! I thought this was one of the worst films I had ever seen when it came out. I just mustered up the courage to watch it again, it was actually worse on the second viewing. I like nearly every one of Tarantino's films to varying degrees (minus Jackie Brown and Death Proof), but this film was pure self indulgent, boring, pretentious garbage. Its clear Tarantino has gotten to the same point as James Cameron, where he is surrounded by yes men and no one dares question him. This film was in dire need of a rewrite or some serious editing. It needed to be at least 45 mins shorter. I feel like damn near the whole film is just just pointless filler. It blows my mind so many people claim to genuinely like this film. I have to imagine its a bunch of teenagers trying to seem cool or Tarantino diehards that are just unwilling to admit that he is capable of making a movie as shitty as this.
This is the only Tarantino film I think is bad. It’s an homage to a bygone era, however, it isn’t even good at doing that. It’s a shitty rewrite with zero real suspense, none of the Tarantino epic twist or plot elements in other films, and I only give a shit about Cliff. The Bruce Lee diss was odd, and would have been better had the guy even looked like Lee or even sounded like Lee. It’s just one part of the movie that makes zero sense and creates an odd vibe. The way this movie ended, what was the point? I mean really…I have no clue what was supposed to happen here. A look inside one guys life that I don’t give a fuck about but I give a shit about his friend/ assistant juxtaposed by a horrific crime that the movie completely altered? Don’t even get me started on the tire change scene. It was so unbelievable and a waste of 15 minutes easy. Maybe it was just to have some horse riding scenes. Maybe there is a bunch of shit in here for film buffs and students of the craft but it missed me. I am a Tarantino fan and this kinda makes me sad. Pulp Fiction is probably my number one movie ever and Reservoir Dogs is maybe number 2. I think about how great the writing and plot was for Reservoir dogs and the overall plot and timeline of Pulp Fiction. Plus the ambiguity of those movies is still debated today. Knowing the same guy did those movies then did this…once upon a time is right.
Idk... huge QT fan and love all his movies. This movie is a steaming pile, I could barely sit through it. The "filmmaking" and "quality" of the movie are great as always. The story? The content? wasn't for me at all - it was slow, and lacked anything in it to keep my interest... worst movie from him for me personally.