Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood reviewed by Mark Kermode
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 08. 2019
- Mark Kermode reviews Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood. In 1969, Hollywood actor Rick Dalton struggles to deal with his fading stardom while his neighbour on Cielo Drive, actress Sharon Tate, revels in her burgeoning success. Meanwhile Rick’s loyal stuntman and gofer, Cliff Booth, encounters an unusual community living out on nearby Spahn Ranch.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
If you like this, why not subscribe to our podcast for more reviews, interviews and general wittering of the highest order: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l...
Twitter: @Wittertainment
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 3pm on BBC 5 live. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Robbie's interpretation about time running out and they dont know it is spot on. I've just watched this movie for the 2nd time and it is very clear this is what's intended. The last act starts with the Rolling Stones song 'out of time' while we are watching the main characters on that fateful evening with a clock in the bottom corner.
There's something special about this movie. It seems to glide by, in spite of the long running time. You feel a nostalgia for something you never were a part of. And the performances are note perfect. Nothing is taking itself too seriously. It's does feel like a "Once Upon a Time..." fairytale ❤
It's his best film.
I thought it was his most disappointing film and came across as slow and narcissistic.
@@eleycki It wasn't made for millennials or zoomers.
@@seppukusushi2848 ok. I am not those. Who was it made for?
@@eleycki People who appreciate film.
For me it was one of the most enjoyable Tarantino films in a long while. I get what Mark is saying, but all the baggage is why I enjoyed it. It felt like you were there in 1969, living that day.
Exactly. Take all the "baggy" stuff out and my enjoyment in the movie plummets.
Sorry I was almost asleep by the end of the 1st hour. Get rid of the baggy stuff!
Exactly how I felt (he caught the era perfectly), you can literally feel the era in the movie, the cinematography is glorious to say the least and all the actors brought their A game.
I agree. I laughed a lot and really enjoyed the shaggy dog storytelling aspect of the movie. Have to agree with Mark about the ditching of the Bruce Lee episode as it was the one note that jarred for me.
None of that means thats a good film / enjoyable...
The Cliff vs hippies scene was hilarious 🤣
Brad Pitt "on the roof" is one of the greatest parts of the movie.
I loved when Cliff threw Bruce Lee at the car door!
@@1qwasz12 , best part of the film.
Kurt Russell is Stuntman Mike in this film... I don't care what anyone says.
@@leadbelly1495 the bruce lee thing was great
Exactly. That's how bad this film is...
The more you watch it, the shorter it gets. The opposite of most other Tarantino films.
Once was to much.
It's true I doesn't feel as long second time around and third time around.
It is not a "Manson film", it is a 1969 film. All the scenes serve to build the world that we are watching. I think the Bruce Lee scene added some action entertainment where it there otherwise wouldn't be, and it really wasn't disparaging of Bruce Lee's legacy either. Also it builds up Cliff as someone who could do what he did at the end of the movie, even while high.
As someone who has found recent Tarantino films to drag, this flew by.
I find that interesting!
I quite enjoyed this film (mixed feelings, but mostly enjoyed), but I didn't think it could ever be considered pacey. I feel hateful eight had a tendency to drag, but Django (barring the third act) felt swift to me.
@@retardedvaxxedliberal agreed
Yep, that's the best indicator of a film. Some of the shortest films can feel like the longest but I never thought about the time during this as that makes it a great film to me!
I agree, didn't feel baggy at all to me. I guess there was a lot of traveling and walking about but I was so busy sucking in all the movie images in the background it didn't slow anything down and helped build the feel of the film. Also the little bit of narration felt right to me - it was part of the stylistic mix in the film not a desperate attempt to suddenly fill in the gaps. I just don't agree with Mr Kermode this time.
This is the most boring film I've seen a long while.
Absolutely loved it but I have been waiting for this review. Got chills during the scene when Sunset lit up as The Rolling Stones played along to Kurt Russell's voiceover narration. It was just beautiful
Apart from the violence at the end that was the best part of the movie. Gave me chills in the cinema anticipating what was to come. Been listening to that song on repeat now as well.
Yep.
Baby, you're out of time.
I believe the film is best described as Tarantino's "love letter to the golden age of Hollywood". While I agree with Kermode on certain elements, I believed the scenes, music and atmosphere were absolutely perfect: and to recognise that, you must have a certain affinity with the glory of the era.
Nah, it was too long and I didn't like the ending
Those driving scenes are worth it alone.
The golden age of Hollywood was the 40s and the 50s. This film is about the remnants of the golden age overlapping with the coming of the new wave movement.
@@caitlinbrennan9039 It was the greatest ending ever.
I actually think it’s QT most mature work since Jackie Brown - Mark is after a tight 90 minute movie which isn’t what Tarantino has done since Reservoir Dogs.
Which, incidentally is my favourite Tarantino movie.
Jackie brown is just as long as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood interestingly enough.
I agree. While RD is not my favorite QT movie (now, OUATIH is), it grows on me. In fact, the only movie I totally agree with Kermode on QT's lack of discipline is The Hateful Eight. And that's the only one I really don't like. But I think he had to make that movie to make this one.
I prefer his immature mad stuff like Basterds & Django, I have almost completely forgotten the ill-disciplined OUATIH
@@fruitlantis Weirdly my issue with those two films is they're not immature or mad enough. It sort of comes back to the ill-disciplined argument again. My argument against Tarantino, post Jackie Brown is he's too big and can generate too big an audience. Which seems an odd thing to say but along with that BO success he's never being forced to constrain himself because of a budget or producers. He isn't being forced to be disciplined. And with some directors that have grand ideas and deep intelligent things to communicate that can often create mad but insanely creative products. But that's not Tarantino. He loves pulp films and B movies. But they were made fast and cheap. When he was working with somebody like Roger Avery he had more focus and without that kind of influence he's more inclined to indulge himself.
OUATIH is the first film of his I've enjoyed in a while. But it's not because it's a good film imo. Which is definitely a good jumping off point about what a good film is. I like it because he's created a nice place to spend a couple of hours. He has charismatic actors being charismatic, he has a great soundtrack and he has beautiful shots of a bygone era. And for the majority of the film that's all it is. Only Tarantino could make this because only Tarantino has the BO to get away with it.
@@Hoopla10 totally agreed you can see what he is going for with this story but the third act, narration and the family-guy esce cut away stories.
Is the Jackie Brown thing related to the fact that it's his only non-original screenplay?
There we are, you can all relax now 🙄
Shows producer would have taken a sigh of relief and glad Robbie saved the day, and Kermode wrapped himself up in 3 min
Get off your high horse and stop pretending you weren’t waiting for this.
Oooo saaaah
Dean H I’m waiting for the Rugby World Cup, the Winds of Winter and for my missus to get back from holiday. Not a 3 minute review of a film on CZcams. Have a lovely weekend 😊
Thomas Davies You haven’t lived until you’ve eagerly awaited a 3 minute movie review. Get it together, man!
Mark nailed it. There's clearly a lot to love in this movie, like all Tarantino films, but judged as a singular unit it's incredibly unpolished and uneven, almost like watching improv for 2 1/2 hours.
No.
@@aarongutierrez7705 Yes
He missed the point, it’s like critiquing 12 angry men by saying “it feels like a play”, because it is. If tarintino wanted to make a straightforward plot he could, he has proved it 8 other times.
@@aarongutierrez7705 12 Angry Men is a very eventful movie. This is like 12 Angry Men if Henry Fonda nodded off for 10 minutes and we got a closeup of him sleeping for the whole time.
Jackie Brown will always be the one that stands out from the rest as its from an Elmore leonard novel and not originally written by Tarantino.
@@npe9483 Lmfao, that's a good one.
@@npe9483 Damn man, how you gonna do Inglorious Basterds like that?
I feel like everyone needs to rewatch Inglorious and recognise that its top tier Tarantino (I hated it first watch, was totally enamoured 2nd watch)
QT says if Jackie Brown is your fav of his, "you like the least Tarantino of all my movies"
@@Lee_Forre It's definitely the Tarantino film for people who don't like Tarantino.
I don't know if it was in the original book, but the way that the bag swapping sequence(s) played out, was Tarantino at his finest. Plus, who wouldn't just love Pam Grier, the sassiest woman in his whole canon?
I really enjoyed it. I thought the Bruce Lee encounter was hilarious. Also the friendship between Rick Dalton and the child actress was brilliantly done. Jackie Brown is my favourite. Tarantino movie too.
The self indulgence is half the fun.
I absolutely loved it. Definitely one of Tarantino's best with Brad Pitt and Leonardo Dicaprio on magnificent form. Margot Robbie is also superb. The ranch scenes were really tense. Definitely one of the best films of the year for me.
What specifically did you love about it?
Margot Robbie is superb? I like her but she had nothing to do in this film, her character was pointless. All she did was sit in a car, dance a t a party and go to the cinema.. She hardly has any dialogue, no depth whatsoever
@@supes12 I just loved being in the company of the characters in a brilliantly recreated 1969. Pitt and Dicaprio are a great double act. The soundtrack was brilliant too. Wonderful cinematography rounded off a great experience for me.
@@supes12 I agree that she was underused but she was brilliant: the sequence in the cinema was excellent. Brought a lump to the throat.
@@hurleyfunbags fair enough about Robbie. Personally I fail to see what was brilliant. Anyone could have played that role because she had absolutely nothing to do. Sit in car, dance, sit in cinema. If you take her out the film it would make absolutely no difference at all.
Kermode's spot on with this review. Tarantino is frustrating. There's always a good movie trying to escape the over-indulgent excesses. Still enjoyed it though.
I agree. There's plenty of enjoyable scenes, moments, lines, sequences, etc, however, it's the pointless lingering on scenes that are going nowhere, that do not contribute to the plot, character, or drive of the film that frustrated me. I understand it was deliberate and that it wanted us to take a moment and soak in the whole late 60s LA vibe but it happened repeatedly in the film and it was like "we get it". The first third and last third of the film is enjoyable. It sags very heavily in the middle with sequences that, if presented to a young Tarantino who had something to prove, would immediately be cut down or removed completely. The only moment where the lingering was called for was the Brad Pitt Manson Ranch sequence in order to build anxiety and tension. But 30-40 minutes of driving around LA without dialogue? A whole sequence where we watch Margot Robbie drive, get out of a car, walk down the street, walk into a book shop, purchase a book, leave the shop, walk to the cinema and then never mention the book again? "Terrifically ill-disciplined" is very accurate.
He makes movies for public enjoyment, he never strives for achievement like Kubrick(who actually achieved) & Chris Nolan who strives so hard & will never get there.
I think this is his best since pulp fiction
@@shadowsmessage That's a great comment, but since you mentioned Nolan I feel like I have to step in and say something really quick:
1- Tarantino makes movies for the public, but his writing and storytelling style is heavily influenced by the Godardian branch of thought that loves "stories about nothing". I think this is why Kermode didn't like Once upon a Time. Yes, Sharon Tate features in the movie, and yes, there's a story about Leonardo Dicaprio's character being at the end of his career, but none of it means anything. The movie isn't really "about" these characters. They're just vehicles for Tarantino to make a love letter to a period of Hollywood he's wildly romanticizing. There's no greater theme or purpose.
2 - Chris Nolan makes movies for the public, but he's also a brilliant person, just as an individual. His mind works in a unique way, he's incredibly introspective on a psychological level, he has incredible psychological insights into storytelling and perception of human experience, and he's able to allow these insights to enter his storytelling and still produce work that is not just accessible...but gripping to a much bigger audience than Tarantino. And I don't believe that Nolan cares that much about an Academy Award. I'm sure he'd like it for his ego's sake, but at the end of the day he makes great work, which I'm sure he knows, and that's probably enough for him.
@@zacd1419 no chance
I interpreted the jarring V.O narration at the "6 Months Later" point as a bookmark for us entering the more fantastical aspect of the film; that prior to then, despite Cliff and Rick being fictional characters, they merely represented fictional perspectives, and history was largely to have played out the way it did in reality. Once they return to LA, the movie had taken us to an entirely make-believe wish-fulfillment. In this world, anything could have happened. It seemed like a good timestamp for history buffs to check out before Tarantino pissed them all off. I personally loved the film but I understand how the second half introducing all these new elements would have contributed to an uneven viewing experience.
I sort of guessed as much, regarding the sudden narration, but I did find it unexpectedly and unintentionally funny because of that.
I respect mark's opinion, but agree more with Robbie .
@David McCarrison I'm with you. Loved it. It's now my favorite Tarrentino movie, moving past Jackie Brown.
Don't forget to respect your own view the most.
I loved it, and to me personally, it didn't feel too long, which kind of surprised me, as I agree 100% that Tarantino films can feel like they are 30 mins too long...
"911" the tenth film by QT ... 3 hours of fantasic scenes and tension building, following the highjackers, passengers and WTC workers... the final 11 minutes ... all the planes land safely... roll credits.
So you wanted to see murders? You sick puppy ;) the clue is in the title kid.
I would pay to see that lmao
Looking forward to his TV series of Jack the Ripper where the prostitutes string Jack up by his nads and rip him a new one.
I agree with Mark. I really didn't enjoy the movie and left feeling hollow. It was incredibly indulgent and every shot of a bare foot pulled me out of the movie and reminded me I was watching a Tarantino fetish movie.
Well he's got to make something he can wack off to I suppose.
Yes! Fetish movie, exactly,
I was frustrated because I could see a good movie in there somewhere if it was solely about Dalton and Booth, but the Sharon Tate stuff just made the movie drag every time it cut to her life. If the film edited out all the Tate stuff and got it down to 2 hours I think it'd be very good.
It bored me to absolute death, and I'm obsessed with the 1960s.
Enjoyed it all the way, very funny in places, all the retakes for one. I just like how Tarantino shoots, so distinctive from most. Cliff wants to see how his old bud is doing? He's going to go and find out, where most would accept you just know it's taking the other route. The last 15 mins had me in tears of laughter, the action and dialogue hilarious.
Phew. Glad to see someone else is agreeing the film is too long and self-indulgent. We didn't need a 10minute scene to show Rick Dalton messing up one line, or a three-song montage showing Cliff driving from Rick's house to his own.
@@npe9483 I understand your points about the stumbling on the line scene; I think you've observed that quite well. But I still don't feel much from the latter section. Yeah, Cliff has confidence when driving his own car.. but there are quicker ways to show that. It was proven the second he drove out of the driveway. It seemed to me just an excuse for Tarantino to use more music that he liked. I know Mark isn't just complaining either, and the film is divisive. I enjoyed the last act thoroughly, and thought the scene with Cliff going to the ranch was thrilling. But everything else seemed a bit bloated to me.
I agree I found it very self indulgent. I was watching it and wondering when does the movie start, I left the film and just didn't get it, didn't feel anything of consequence nor conclusion had occurred and was left wondering what was that all about, felt more like a story for a pilot for TV show then a movie. Considering how much I loved The Hateful Eight with its tightness and intriguing dialogue, it felt like a step-down from his previous three films. I attended it with two of my friends and they loved, and I just didn't get it, really was a disappointment.
I loved those scenes which I felt made the movie
I couldn't agree with Mark more. I thought it had some great bits that were overshadowed by very bulky and draining scenes, especially in the 2nd act which needed to be cut down by several mintues. ***spolier*** Also the "twist" in the car was too abrupt and poorly executed.. after all their loyality and passion towards following Charle's orders, they'd made a split decision to raid DiCap's house? Not buying it..
It's not really a twist; they were going to raid Sharon's home next, but they didn't get the chance. They never even specifically mention raiding Dalton's house-they talk about killing all the actors in the vicinity.
Thank you! Four of us came out of the cinema wondering why we didn't enjoy it, yet so the critics laud it. Are we too stupid to appreciate it?
Mark sums it up perfectly.
@@Bradford659 I plan to.
There was a clearly a lot of quality in it, but regardless of that I make a lot of my decision based on how I feel when I leave the cinema. Underwhelmed would best describe it.
Two hours of filter, a lack of quality Tarantino dialog, Margot Robbie reduced to almost nothing with no memorable scenes. The dog had more to do in the movie than she did.
I think part of my frustration is know that Tarantino is capable of so much more.
@@Bluedotred I agree. And I've seen it 3 times now - primarily for the art direction. Living in LA it's fun to see how they transformed parts of LA so well. But going back to the film, I simply feel the issue is that Tarantino isn't a deep or intellectual filmmaker. His amazing skill-set resides somewhere else. So having such a long and languid approach to the storytelling may work well for the likes of Tarkofsky and Antonioni, but for Tarantino he struggles.
I actually thought this movie was more mature than Jackie Brown. Brown still had super long dialogue scenes and way more violence/shock elements. This was more a slice of life so I don't see how you could "cut it down". The point is to see the characters in their daily lives so what would you cut it down to?
The ending of "Once Upon a Time" is WAY more violent than anything in Jackie Brown.
@@benhammel9886 But he's not talking about the violence when mentions maturity. He says that the scenes of people walking around the city in Hollywood are being self-indulgent but I think that's unfair. If anything, I think it's a sign of maturity that he's trusting the audience to get invested even when there's not melodrama or violence going on.
You didn't have that in Jackie Brown, which had gangsters/guns/heists all throughout. I would say this film, that focuses (for the most part) on three people living their lives is way more calm/adult.
Maybe he means that Jackie Brown has a better plot and I would agree with that but it does't make the film any more mature.
Jackie Brown's narrative had a character who went on an arc, and secondary characters who felt real. This movie didn't have any of those things. It had surface and atmosphere that felt real and was artistically done, but that doesn't mean the movie had substance.
@@pietrpiepir6444 I don't know about that. There was a lof of substance in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. The whole film has very deep themes about fame, art, celebrity and life in general. Rick Dalton having a crisis because the world of entertainment is changing along with his own insecurities about his age and talent are interesting ideas that anyone can relate to.
Jackie Brown is similar, but I wouldn't say it's any deeper. In my opinion, it's about a woman trying to take control of her life when everyone is trying to use her. It's still a solid film, but unless I'm forgetting something, I don't see how its themes are deeper than OUATIH.
@@Carlos-ln8fd I would say your very response is actually proof of my argument. Your description of Jackie Brown is from the perspective of a character going through a crisis that is relatable to everyone because it is universal. Your description of Once upon a Time in Hollywood is from the perspective of an actor going through a crisis that is only applicable to other actors. You can of course broaden Dalton's crisis to one of the world passing him by, which is something we can all relate to, but I would say that Jackie Brown's crisis is both more relatable and more urgent. Dalton isn't in any true danger, and in drama, danger and conflict are what advance character and conflict.
Thank you! My thoughts exactly. I love QT's work, but this one just dragged for me from beginning to the bit when it suddenly became super-violent.
I agree too violent
@@caitlinbrennan9039 More than that, but the characters behaved in a way that was massively against type (particularly DiCaprio's character). The whole flamethrower bit was stupid. Remember all he knew was that a crazed girl had jumped screaming into his pool. So he goes wandering off and puts on his flame thrower outfit (which would have taken 10 minutes or so). Just so poorly written. For all he knew she could have been a victim.
I completely understand Mark's points but I'm much more in agreement with Robbie Collins take on this film. I was not a fan of the Bruce Lee scene either myself though.
What about Leo DiCaprio's performance? I found him completely mesmerising. DiCaprio already has quite a legacy coming into this movie but this was a chance for Leo to do some of his finest work ever, if not indeed his actual finest, as history may yet judge? What we can already say for certain is we were watching an acting genius on screen in this one.
Dicaprio is so insanely overrated. Like the other guy said, he just looks like he's trying so hard to be impressive. He peaked with Gilbert Grape.
Really a fantastic performance
Mark doesn't like him as an actor. It's ok
I love Jackie Brown, but it isn't a patch on Pulp Fiction.
Thats a good opinion you have there... shame its the wrong one.
I couldn't disagree more.
Pulp Fiction I loved it when it came out, I rewatched recently and realised it has no point to the story or any likeable characters at all.
Nicholas Smith Pulp Fiction has some of the most likeable & memorable characters starting from Vincent & Jules all the way to minor characters.
After a second viewing, I really do feel this has masterpiece elements through out.
Very enjoyable look through a spy glass at 1969 and I loved all of the characters. It didn't seem as long and drawn out second time around. It flowed alot better.
Have you seen any other work other than Tarantino? I'm just curious about how you arrived at 'masterpiece'? Masterpiece of his own psychofetish, maybe.
Agreed. I thought it was too long and pretentious. Other film critic go on how great this movie is, might have something to do with being a QT film.
Post Pulp Fiction Tarantino Films generally need 30-45 minutes editing out.
I don't think so. His movies have grest rewatchability.
This is one of my favourite Tarantino movie. I actually love the way he tells the story and lets his character breath in this one. The final act was just so damn satisfying
the end sucked
@@yungjoemighty879 it was incredible
I really enjoyed this movie. Its very relaxing, laid back with a great soundtrack. Tarantinos best film since Jackie Brown in my opinion, but still not better than his first three movies. I do think Tarantino has been improving with each film ever since inglorious basterds.
Were you asleep when the women were having their skulls caved in while being burned to death by a flamethrower? or just meditating?
My favourite since Jackie Brown too
This film was mostly about the atmosphere, the ambiance, like a Blade Runner film. Why is okay for a movie like Blade Runner to spend a lot of time just basking in the atmosphere, but not okay for this movie? This film felt like a warm blanket a lot of the time.
I also agree with this, why does blade runner get a pass and tarrantino not? If all kermode is interested in is story telling there are countless examples of him giving passes to films that indulge.
I feel the same way about 2001. For me, narrative isn’t really important there it’s the atmosphere that Kubrick created that you’re there to marvel at.
@@adaml5796 Absolutely. Most of my favorite films have really great characters and not much of a driving narrative. What matters is how a particular movie makes you feel. That's it. Kermode is and always has been biased against Tarantino. He doesn't like him. And has always pointed things in his movie. Like the voiceover in this review. I felt that the voiceover did a good job of setting the final act and at the same time build up tension that is going to happen and what the audience thinks is going to happen( in reality) and it plays with very well.
What i love about Mark is that he is one of the only hip film critics (meaning he's just as much of a movie/culture nerd as the rest of us) who has the balls to point out that QT has been slacking for a while. His films have become bloated and overlong and it's usually because he has too much pride to be able to sit back and contextualize what is integral to the pace and what is him just stroking his own nerd ego. I say this as someone who used to adore him until Inglorious Basterds.
I don't agree with that whatsoever. What's this bs about Tarantino being "too proud"? I think the lengthy driving sequences and the generally slow pace are there strictly for the sake of immersion. This is a hangout film that lacks an overarching narrative. It's made to make you feel like you're partaking in a day of the lives of Rick Dalton, Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. Tarantino made this film with love for 1960s Hollywood, he wanted to recreate something dear to his heart, it wasn't made to stroke his ego.
I liked it for the reasons you didn't, you get to inhabit this world and I accepted the fact tmstory telling structure isn't there and just let Tarantino run with his ideas. I'm curious to know what impressions I might get from a second viewing. Left quite an impression on me..
He's right about the Manson girl sounding exactly like Tarantino, but I actually reckon other than that the dialogue was miles better than it's been since, probably, Jackie Brown. Each character had their own distinct voice.
Very true, people actually just keep saying its brilliant just because tarantino made earlier a few cool Movies and now even if it would be a cartoon people still will say its a wonderful movie... Yeah, very sad that there was no respect to Bruce Lee, and he kinda stuck on this WW2 stuff, and damnit i started smoking
I think that was pretty much spot on
So I seen the film and loved it. At first I didn’t know how I felt about the ending but the more I thought about it the more I fitting I thought it was. The one reservation I had with the film was that the lack of strong supporting characters . The thing about this film is , is that there is a lot of characters played by great actors but they are literally cameo appearances. I mean actors like Bruce Dern , Luke Perry , Dakota Fanning and Kurt Russell (just to name a few) all have under 3 minutes of screen time. For a film with so many good characters I would have liking to see more them more developed and give more contribution to the plot or even the development of Rick and Cliffs characters and especially considering the length time is over 2 and a half hours. Also I don’t know how I feel about how little Charles Manson is in the film because on one hand I think Tarantino doesn’t want to make the film about him but on the other hand I think it would have added more tension if he had more scenes.
Brilliant review thank you, especially regarding the unforgiving Bruce Lee scene. Well said.
I liked the Bruce Lee scene. I think it's just snowflakes who complain about it I think Bruce Lee would've loved it.
notyourdad. I can imagine QT thinking it needed to be there, so the audience is all the more confident in Pitt’s character’s ability to do what he did at the end of the movie.
“Bloated, self indulgent and desperately needs an editor” to paraphrase the review.
I love the narration. It’s just his signature
I really enjoyed, my first T movie I really liked and went back to cinema to watch again.
Peter Baker I've seen it three times. And now that I have an unlimited pass, I intend to see it at least three more times.
I totally agree with everything Mark said, when I heard the voice over just come out suddenly I thought someone was talking loudly in the theater for a few seconds,a lot of half cool things just randomly put together (hated the Lee scene) if I was 16 I would've loved the movie, I felt Brad & Leo brought it as well as the rest of the cast were amazing, sets & cinematography was great but not much of a story that grabbed me, but I'm not into the medium for the sake of self grandiosity I can see how some ppl cared tho
The narrator begins earlier in the film, it doesn't come out of nowhere
@@OGR-4394 well that's how consistent it is, I dont even recall there being one by the time it comes back around, it is way too infrequent for there to be one, either make a tighter movie where u won't need one or make it more relevant than just quick explaining to clunkyness in the movie
I think it all depends what you want. Mark wants a slick film but other people are just happy to wallow in the ambiance of a QT movie for as long as it lasts.
But will that ambiance stand the test of time in 10 years? I rewatched Django a couple of weeks ago, first time since 2013, and I noticed all the vulgarity and indulgence I missed the first time around. Hateful 8 is a better movie.
I am exactly that person who immerses himself in a QT movie.its washes over me and gives me a warm indulgent feeling I never wanna end.the dialogue is completely engaging,the set pieces are a delight and the violence just awesome.give me more.
Finally! Thank you, Mark! Been waiting for your response since I saw it opening weekend. I knew this would be the result. I felt the same way, yet I’ve only had to hear how genius it is for the last 3 1/2 weeks.
My only real issue with QT's movies is one of Mark's issues. Namely, that Tarantino makes a good long picture, but if he tightened them up he'd have masterpieces.
The funny thing is, his movies contain vignettes and set pieces, making them easier to cut.
Agree, he shows moments of brilliance which make it frustrating how he can't just pull it all together like he used to these last couple movies (Django gets a pass for first one).
it's a mess of a film but very beautiful at times.
The first 2 hours is just...stuff. Not that it is bad.
I really liked it. I felt it was a child's view of Hollywood at that time, one in front of a TV or from the back seat of a car looking out and lingering on things most people wouldn't glance at as they drove by. The ending surprised me as I was also very concerned when I heard Tarantino was doing a film about the Manson family. I thought the ending worked very well and was respectful to Sharon Tate. I appreciate it's a long film and there is baggage but a lot of it did lay groundwork for important plot points. Overall imho I think it's a fairy tale of late 60's Hollywood.I wonder what Tarantino's next and last film will be?
the ending worked very well and was respectful to Sharon Tate."
Do you think it's respectful that it showed two frat boys pounding a woman's face into a fireplace and burning a horrifically sexist trope of a screaming banshee woman in a pool? To a 'cool' soundtrack, for cheap cinema laughs from chauvinist cinema goers while they burp and eat their popcorn? Interesting perspective, tin foil hat.
*tumbleweed*
Oh dear...never thought I'd see the day Robbie Collin has better insight into a film than the good Doctor. It's CLEARLY an end of an era movie and the first two hours are setting up the status quo and the characters. Without that we don't get the impact of the ending. We need to buy Cliff and Rick before that last act.
And what's wrong with the Bruce Lee scene? "Unforgivable"? Why - Mark never says. If it showed Lee losing, fair enough, but it's not there to show that - it's to give us a barometer of CLiff's toughness and show why he's not got a career despite being brilliant at his job. Mission accomplished. And Lee was an arrogant man who did take his own gifts very seriously and would boast. Why not have a bit of fun with that? Just as we have fun with Steve McQueen being a ladies' man.
After reading the novelisation of the film, the film feels shorter! I loved it the first time and love it more every time I watch it.
I used to be a big fan of Tarantino, read 3 books about him/his movies. But his movies have been on a down hill since the Inglorious; he's starting to show that he lacks the depth to make more than a few great movies. Since the Hateful 8, I've been wondering if the Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction was just a couple of lucky strikes. All those philosophical undertones in those two movies could have been just a kaleidoscope that happened to resemble an art piece made by a grand master.
I think he brough unprecedented style and fire to the industry with his first films but as he grew more popular and more accepted, he became consumed by his ego. I wonder what his career would've looked like if he was never as accepted into the mainstream industry, I imagine that his films would've maintained a consistent quality and he may even have matured as a person and developed some depth to also help his movies evolve.
What annoyed me is that the character of Sharon Tate took up alot of screen time and character exposition, but then had essentially no role in the plot and didn't have a function in the story, if a character is being described extensively in a movie I feel like they need to have at least some small function in the plot, however small. It was the same with Cliff, he underwent alot of development in showing how he cares so much about his dog, and about he isn't complaining about his life that is much worse than Ricks, but then Tarantino doesn't really do anything with those character traits in the end, all Cliff does is fight some hippies on acid, his individual personality doesn't really matter in that scene, it would have been the same if his character had been described entirely differently. Basically almost the entire is character development and exposition that plays no role or function in the actual plot, probably because the plot only lasts for about the last 30 minutes of the movie, the first 2 hours are just... stuff. Having said all that, the flamethrower seen is one of the best scenes ever written, so its all worth it for that.
William Ronayne the character of Sharon Tate is a object for building tension. With the history behind it whenever she is shown there is a sense of fear and loss that is heartfelt. It is rising tension that builds up to the climax.
Mark says that when he heard Tarantino was doing a Manson movie he was weary because of the genre. What genre bro? Biopic? Hollywood on Hollywood? Horror? What the hell is he talking about?
hey so I've watched quite a bit of these reviews, what does he mean when he says a movie is "self-indulgent" or "ill-disciplined"??
I can understand the criticisms of it being too long and a lot of the film simply is not required to tell "the story" but I didn't get the impression Tarantino was trying to tell a story with this one.
It's a day in the life of the characters, not "this happens then this happens which causes that" etc, whether you think it's worth your time of course is another matter
Def buying this on blu ray.
Try downloading it
Not watched it yet, but will be interested to see how it compares to most recent works. Still love Reservoir Dogs.
I just assumed all the "shoe leather" as mark calls it was just a throwback to films of that era. They always had long driving sections or walking sections of a few minutes at a time where no one said anything and nothing of significance happens.
Glad he went straight to the point an said the Bruce Lee segment should of been cut .
Many people in this film had an easy pay check .
Kurt Russell
Zoe bell
And Bruce Willis' daughter .
An yep it's not Tarantino's best work.
At least two names on that list probably earned an easy paycheck for what they've gave for film & TV.
defaultforarandomname huh we'll have to agree to disagree. It's by far my favorite, and I think in generations to come, it will be considered his best.
@@joeodonnell921 oh. Don't get me wrong, not criticising these actors for it. There are many more in this film he just cut or didn't use much.
So....yea ha.
I'm a Tarantino fan but I tend to agree with Kermode's stance, especially on Tarantino's latter work. I think QT's editor dying is a big part in that. His movies have always been long but he really self-indulges of late and I think his recent movies could be drastically improved by chopping out a good 40 minutes.
Also, the 'surprise' ending I guessed a mile off, I guessed it as soon as I heard it would feature the manson family. That trick is getting a bit predictable since he's now done it in Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained. The old revisionist history revenge twist - it's cool but it's not surprising now.
i love mark and agree with him on a lot of films, but you can't agree with everything and this film is one of those things! loved it!
An indulgent Tarantino movie...well I never 🤣
For anyone interested, Director's Cut has a Tarantino interview conducted by Paul Thomas Anderson. It's really fun and to me explains the main issues of the films.
Henry G how have you got your hands on it already?
I'm a dirty hippy, that's how.
Lack of discipline, sure but the Bruce Lee vs. Brad Pitt character moment was one of the funniest things seen in any movie.
I was roaring, loud, in laughter.
Fairytale ending forgave the indulgences.
I knew exactly what Mark was going to say about the film before listening to this review and I haven’t even seen the film. He’s always banging on about Jackie brown, we get it, you like Jackie! Brown!
Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction are the gold standard when it comes to Tarantino's discipline and style. All his other movies lack the discipline, and instead rely on pulpy dialogue and are way too long.
R Broox Jackie Brown is probably a bit to long at 2h 40min. I just don’t want to hear a review about Jackie Brown every time a new Tarantino film comes out. Mark could learn from his own criticism and edit his review down.
GiRayne I hear but come on we all know why mark goes on about it so much, it’s because its one of Tarantino lowest rated film and Mark likes to be different. It’s over 20 years old now and it’s really not that good. He’s given it a lot of airtime over the years.
GiRayne I should just clarify that I do actually like Mark and enjoy his review s normal, I’ve been watching him for years back when he uses to introduce late night films on channel 4. I’ve also seen him live twice. I’ve just found recently Robbie’s reviews more interesting.
GiRayne I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Cut and paste error at the start of the Description text.
Have to say I really enjoyed it and the time just flew by ... didn't drag at all for me . Brad Pitt was the standout for me
Something I've always wondered is why people find the manson murders specifically so distasteful when it's made into a movie? People have no trouble making movies about other serial killers and tragedies and no one goes "yick." The Tate murder was horrific, no doubt, but so were many other real life things that were made into movies. I guess it sort of rubs me the wrong way because it seems like Hollywood only cares when it affects one of their own.
Could be because she was pregnant? And Manson was trying to start a race war
We liked it so much we saw it twice, it was even funnier the second time...loved it!
It's not a comedy. Were you one of those people laughing when the Manson weirdos were walking up the driveway to kill Tate? Dunno what's more despicable, that Tarantino trivialised a real murder by having a couple of yobbo yankee knuckleheads violently murder the manson followers.....Or that people actually laugh all the way through it.
@@egw6659 it is totally a comedy
"Inhale the cinema of Tarantino". So on spot.
If you didn’t enjoy it the first time PLEASE watch it again, I didn’t like it initially but the second time and third time it blew my mind, it’s incredible! First time it dragged, second and third time it flew by, it might be Tarantino’s best.
I felt the same way about it the second time out. From an art direction perspective I found it amazing. But for pacing and narrative flow, I found it lacking. And bear in mind I'm a big fan of Antonioni and Tarkovsky - so I don't mind a film taking it's own sweet time telling a story. I just didn't feel Tarantino had enough to say to justify the length. I don't find him a deep or intellectual filmmaker. His roots run elsewhere. Mark Kermode's review pretty much summed up my feelings entirely.
I quite liked it being long. Took me away from all my troubles into 1969 Hollywood. I mean it would have been nice for a little more complex story. Like more stuff with the Manson family, and they should have thrown in Denis Wilson for good measure.
Gets better & better with repeated viewing. Deserves Oscar for Cinematography & Production design.
I was pretty ignorant about the Manson story until after the movie and don't know if I would have enjoyed it more than I did having some previous knowledge.
I knew Mark would say that it could do with being shorter. No mention of the 70 mm release then?
Seen the film twice and thought it was great.
Have been a QT fan since "Reservoir Dogs" back in 1993. There were only five people in the cinema
when I saw it. The rest is history.....Apart from the poorly executed grindhouse films, QT hasn't put a
foot wrong.
The most important thing about OUATIH is that QT ensured Sharon Tate's reputation as a beautiful young
woman who had a brilliant future in front of her.
Equally important is the magnificent soundtrack. Only Scorsese has matched him.
I finally watched this and it’s one of my favorite Tarantino films ever. I haven’t whole heartedly loved one of his films since Jackie Brown. To me this may be better than Jackie Brown. The things that people found problematic about the characters I find true to the era, and essential to the real life plot the film’s built around. I love the 60s, I’ve read so much about it and all the tragic dichotomies that defined the era. Witnessing this revision of a tragic event was cathartic for me, but still somber because of course it didn’t go that way. America had problems then all contributing and it’s got problems now. Inserting a Hollywood ending that’s still brutal and problematic was the best we could’ve hoped for at the time. Cathartic, but still dark and sad. Love it
Better than jackie brown.....HA
Never better than Jackie Brown.
I could not have said it better myself, 100% spot on review. And yes Jackie Brow IS QT best.
@GiRayne The least? I personally think its not. Its definitely an adapted piece of work but the dialog is 100% QT . And for the record I am an admirer of Tarantino's films, some obviously more then others.
Of all the things that were wrong with that movie , the bruce lee scene didn't make my list. This guy says it's unforgivable but gives us no indication as to why.
There's this incredibly expensive-looking party scene with two dozen extras just so he can include Steve McQueen explaining something to the audience. Its unbelievably baggy.
That's the best scene, brilliant atmosphere
Agreed about the voice over in the later parts of the movie. I took out all tension that Tarantino really could have shown what he could do with an atmosphere of impending doom, but no. Overall a well shot movie, but I didn't get anything out of the cinematography. Neither did I really got much out of the story. The editing though was some of the best in any Tarantino flick.
Since every time Jackie Brown's brought up, it's not stated that it feels distinct and more fulfilling because it's not his story. As he's said, he doesn't consider an audience member a Tarantino-movie fan if the movie they like most is one he didn't think up and write himself.
Loved it and everything about it! Bought it on BluRay after seeing it in the cinema twice and can’t wait to enjoy it again! 🤌🏽👌🏽
I liked the Cliff Booth vs Bruce Lee scene. By removing this flashback, Pitt's screentime would be cut. That would be fine if Pitt was dragging the movie down but this performance won an Oscar (and deservedly so in my opinion).
Saying that, Pitt's character would never be capable of defeating Lee in a fight but don't forget this is "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood", so some fairytale aspects should be allowed.
I understand why some my find this movie dragged but what I most enjoyed was watching two great actors experiencing late 60's Hollywood.
I've seen Once Upon A Time In Hollywood labelled as a "hangout movie" and perhaps that's accurate, but so far, this is a movie that has improved for me with each other repeat viewing.
I love this era and would actually like to see Tarantino's original cut which I understand was much longer.
You have to see this more than once to appreciate
Absolutely spot on!
Where is this movie going is what I thought whilst watching this movie. Great acting by Pitt and Di Caprio
Robbie's critique was enough to convince me to see this movie.That, and my niece and nephew's enthusiasm after they had seen
it. But alas it was not to my tastes. I agree with Mark but for other reasons. I left after 1 hr (only 2nd time in my life) The other? The Hobbit. Although Brad Pitt did an admirable job.
imo if you leave a movie early you have no right to criticise it, you after the first hour you miss out on some amazing scenes
@@madladjunoir288 Yes you do. If you leave a film its ultimately because nothing the film is doing works at all on any level. Dan Brown you made the right decision. I watched this with friends and the last 5th of the film is the absolute worst.
@@madladjunoir288 Sorry but the movie was headed nowhere. I stayed longer than I expected
@@egw6659 Appreciate the support. I honesty tried to like it. No ending would have saved it
I saw it 4 days ago and still cant stop thinking about it... I usually forget I've seen a superhero movie the day after I've seen it. Btw, the Bruce Lee scene was one of the best. I tend to agree with Mr Kermode on most reviews, but not this time.
He didn't like it before he watched it
I remember coming out of this think I cant tell if that's was good or bad I'm kinda fall on it's fine yet I feel like I never feel like I have to watch it again it got no scene that would consider iconic like his other movie like whose gonna quote anything from and while all the acting was good there so many people wasted especially Russell and Robbie while I appreciate he's trying to tell a more mature story it still felt like he was making me this for himself over the audience.
I think that I’m a rare person who loves baggage and extra bits in films that don’t need to be there. Makes a film and it’s characters feel real when you are privy to bits that don’t really need to be there.