Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood

I don't typically leave IMDb reviews but this film deserves so much praise for its risky screenplay in such a dark true crime setting.

For 2 hrs, 41 minutes, I was taken 50 years back, experiencing Hollywood's film industry as a comedic drama filled with desire, tension and everyday life.

I liked Brad's character the most, but Leo easily matched with his own performance. A definite see-it-in-theatres watch. Bring your sense of humor though. There are lines of dialogue and laugh out loud bits that completely satisfy your curious mind. Expect everything you would from Tarantino, but also what you wouldn't.

I gave it a perfect 10 because I forgot I was watching a nearly 3 hour film, even though it still wasn't long enough for me. I would like to see a director's cut up to an hour longer as I think this is a unique case that extra footage would only help such an already powerful story.

I had the privilege to watch an early 70mm screening of this film at the cinerama dome with the director, Tarantino, in the audience. It was a surreal experience I'll never forget.

Greetings again from the darkness. Hippies, westerns, short skirts, pompadours, catchy pop songs ... all have (mostly) disappeared from our world. Back to save the day and the memories, and twist a little history, is Quentin Tarantino, the ultimate film geek. His latest reminds us of a bygone era of movie stars and old school filmmaking ... a once beloved industry which has been described as being on life support. There have been plenty of big screen love letters to Hollywood, but few if any, were filmed with so many personal touches and call-backs to the director's own films.

In keeping with the request from Mr. Tarantino, this review will not include any spoilers or details that might negatively impact anyone's initial viewing of the film. It's a reasonable request since the film is so unique and literally packed with nostalgia, sight gags, and historical bits and pieces - some accurate, some not so much. There is a lot to take in and process, and the full impact of the initial viewing might result in awe, shock or disgust ... and maybe even all of the above. So this will be a pretty simple overview peppered with some insight that should enhance rather than spoil the experience.

The film covers about 6 months in 1969, but in reality, it all takes place (at least what we see on screen) in 3 days. Leonardo DiCaprio (possibly his best ever performance) plays Rick Dalton, an actor who had a hit (fictional) TV western series in the 50's and 60's entitled "Bounty Law". Since the show ended, Rick has been unable to make the successful transition to movies. For comparison, think of Clint Eastwood, Steve McQueen and Burt Reynolds - all actors in TV westerns who found greater career success in movies. Brad Pitt (the epitome of cool) stars as Cliff Booth, Rick's stunt double, friend, driver, handyman, etc. While Rick is desperate to find the next stage of his career and fend off being forgotten, Cliff, a Vietnam vet, is accepting of his lot in life. Rick lives in a swanky Hollywood Hills home next door to hotshot director Roman Polanski and his starlet wife Sharon Tate; and Cliff lives in a trailer behind the Van Nuys Drive-In with his well-trained Rottweiler Brandy.

There are multiple parallel stories to follow, and a key one involves the aforementioned Sharon Tate. Margot Robbie nails the role and bounces about town with the energy and sweet aura that we imagine she possessed. All 3 of the lead actors - DiCaprio, Pitt, Robbie - have knockout scenes that I'd love to be able to discuss, but I'm not sure how without giving away too much. What I can say is that each of these three talented actors prove that movie stars still exist.

This is Tarantino's 9th film as a director (he counts the 2-part KILL BILL as one film), and he claims he will stop making films after number 10. There are multiple features we can count on in a QT film, and a ridiculously deep supporting cast is one. Going through each of the characters played by actors you will recognize would take a page and a half, so I'll cover only a few here. Margaret Qualley is a scene stealer as Pussycat, one of the Manson family girls. You likely remember her from the recent "Fosse/Verdon" or "The Leftovers", and here she fully embraces the hippie look and spirit. Emile Hirsch plays hairdresser Jay Sebring, one of those in the house with Ms. Tate on that fateful night, and Mike Moh plays Bruce Lee so convincingly that I was momentarily confused when he took off his sunglasses. Also making appearances are some Tarantino regulars: Kurt Russell (as a stunt coordinator and narrator), Michael Madsen (as an actor), and Bruce Dern as George Spahn (a late replacement after Burt Reynolds passed away). Others of note include Maya Hawke (Uma Thurman's daughter), Austin Butler (recently cast in the title role of Baz Luhrmann's Elvis biopic) as Tex Watson, Rumer Willis (Bruce's daughter) as actress Joanna Pettet, Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen, Al Pacino as agent Marvin Schwarzs, Dakota Fanning as Squeaky Fromme, and the late Luke Perry as actor Wayne Maunder ("Lancer"). 90 year old Clu Gulager ("The Virginian", THE LAST PICTURE SHOW) makes an appearance, and Nicholas Hammond (Friedrich from THE SOUND OF MUSIC) tears into his role with gusto as director Sam Wanamaker. There is even a TV Guide cover featuring the late great character actor Andrew Duggan ("Lancer"). Some of these, and many more, are like cameos, but it's still fascinating to see the faces.

1969 was 50 years ago, and Tarantino does a remarkable job of recreating the look of Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood Boulevard, Cielo Drive, and studio backlots. Much credit goes to Production Designer Barbara Ling and Set Decorator Nancy Haigh (frequent Coen Brothers collaborator and an Oscar winner for BUGSY). Arianne Phillips does a tremendous job with the costumes that look natural for the time period, and not like something right off the wardrobe racks. Three-time Oscar winning Cinematographer Robert Richardson (HUGO, THE AVIATOR, JFK) is back for his 6th Tarantino film, and he captures the look and feel and vibe of a time that is so personal to the director.

It's been three and a half years since THE HATEFUL EIGHT, Tarantino's most recent film, and probably his worst received. This one is clearly personal as it captures the time and place that he fell in love with movies. The dichotomy of rising starlet and fading cowboy as neighbors is a brilliant way to make a point about times changing. This was a time of transition in the United States - a new culture was upon us, and whatever innocence remained, was surely snuffed out on a hot August night in 1969. As usual, his use of music serves a purpose. We are treated to Roy Head, The Royal Guardsmen, and Paul Revere and the Raiders, among others. QT also shows us plenty of bare feet (another trademark). What is unusual is that the film lacks the trademark mass dialogue. This one kind of meanders ... right up until it doesn't.

Quentin Tarantino is a living, breathing film geek (that's a compliment) who has earned the right to make the movies he wants to make. This one took him a lifetime to live, 5 years to write, and it will take you 161 minutes to watch. It was warmly received at Cannes, but no one can expect to "catch" everything Mr. Tarantino has served up in one viewing. That said, one viewing will likely be one too many for quite a few folks (especially many under 40 who have no recollection of this Hollywood). Some will categorize this as an overindulgent nostalgia trip for movie nerds. And they are likely correct. But for those of us who complain that too many movies are remakes, re-treads and comic books, there is no denying Tarantino delivers a unique and creative viewing experience - and it's not meant for everyone.

I'm a huge T fan, absolutely love many of his movies, but not all and sadly this joins the later list. The best way to describe this movie is "A day in the life of a Hollywood Actor in 1969". That is, mostly just an AVERAGE day, which is largely where the problem lies for many of us who expected more here.

Acting is great all around and saves it somewhat but like too often these days I really feel the script was weak. An example of this would be just how often we see Brad Pitt driving around by himself, where really nothing happens; it reeks of filler material but why even have it there in an already long film? Margo Robbie kind of got robbed here to some degree, her character just gets a very very minor role, didn't come off right at all.

A day in the life of in 1969 is somewhat interesting to many but if that is going to be the core it really needed some more Ooommph; like the Bruce Lee scene, German meeting scene and sequences like the ending, which finally had his trademarks all over it. Even though the film does have a "climax", there was really almost no lead up to it, and almost no really story tension throughout, sadly it mostly just plods along.

Really hoping for a return to form for his 10th and apparently possible last film. This film has some charm, which mostly comes through in the great acting, but overall this was disappointing.

Not even Tarantino with his blood-soaked trademark violence can save this year from mediocrity. It's abundantly clear that his ninth film is a passion project, his love letter to 60s Los Angeles when it was deemed cool for the hippie lifestyle to integrate with mainstream America. It's substantially glossy, kaleidoscopic, heck some may even describe this three hour long "epic" as, well, epic. The only thing epic about this behemoth is Dalton's beastly flamethrower as he incinerates a group of Nazis. This is, without a doubt in my mind, Tarantino's weakest film to date and another sign of his progressive downfall in quality. An ageing television actor, his swooning stunt double and actress Sharon Tate navigate the alterations of the Hollywood film industry, with the Manson "Family" providing a suitably bleak backdrop.

Technically, this comedy-drama is good, and I'm not just saying that to ease the scathing hatred that is inevitably flying my way from Tarantino fans. His directorial efforts were effortless. Managing to sustain multiple storylines with a wide array of cameos from his ensemble cast and allowing the lead actors to chew the scenery til it's just mulch. A tribute to the art of filmmaking whilst also providing insight in an actor's mind during vast changes within the industry that made him famous. Tarantino's foot fetish aside, his ability to swoop the camera from high octane tracking shots following a horse to sub-urban houses in Hollywood hills (mostly comprising of single takes) is unprecedented. Even with a simple conversational piece, much like when Dalton meets Fraser for the first time and talks about the novel he's reading and resembling, it's executed with such confidence that it immediately entrances you. Overextended and laborious? Absolutely. Yet witnessing Dalton come to terms with his acting talent, alongside the beautiful creature that is Olyphant playing James Stacy, is oddly engrossing.

Of course, only possible due to DiCaprio's electric performance. Purposefully overacting, consistently shouting and harnessing the only developed arc out of all the characters Tarantino shoves into the film. His comedic timing, reminiscent of his venture in Scorsese's 'The Wolf of Wall Street', is impressive and allows a handful of laughs to sneak in, particularly when on the set of 'Lancer'. These characters all residing in a well-designed, precisely replicated and exuberant city that encapsulated the culture at the time. The production was immaculate, accompanied by a signature soundtrack that oozes sophistication and provides a mixtape for golden rock'n'roll.

So, like I mentioned, technically this is a very proficient film. Which begs the question "why was I underwhelmed?". Well, that's because nothing happens. A near three-hour collage of Cliff Booth driving across Los Angeles, Sharon Tate watching her own film and the Manson "Family" walking bare feet on lukewarm sand. It's so self-indulgent with no actual substance that it borders on being pretentious. The multiple storylines rarely mesh. Booth is the exact same character from start to finish and is only present to beat the smack down out of Bruce Lee. Tate has no purpose to the over arcing story whatsoever and diminishes the talent of Robbie who has considerably limited screen time. The entire Manson backdrop is utterly futile in terms of placement, that it seems incredibly forced during the last act (although ridiculously fantastic to watch) just so Tarantino can address the cult's motives. The length that various scenes last for was enough to send anyone to sleep, mostly due to the restrained writing from Tarantino that lacks the punch from his previous efforts. An unaccomplished conclusion that left me questioning the entire purpose of the film. Aside from Dalton being introduced to his neighbours, the start of the story is the exact same as the ending. No one has any development! When Tarantino alludes to something happening, like Booth investigating Spahn Ranch, he deviates and sets the pace back to pedestrian mode. Simply a mish-mash of cameos so that everyone working in Hollywood today can claim they were part of a Tarantino feature.

For a film that is designed to be a homage to the golden age of Hollywood, there is a distinct lack of gold to be found in this bejewelled ensemble presentation. Whilst technically proficient and wonderfully acted, the absence of substance and genuine character development makes a three-hour affair feel more like a five hour ordeal. And it pains me to say that, as I wanted Tarantino to be the saving grace of this lacklustre year.

Before watching this film, it is CRITICAL that you have somewhat of a knowledge about Charles Manson (and Sharron Tate). If I did not have my sister next to me pointing out the small references to this serial killer's story, I would not have understood at least 80% of the movie. Understanding the significant details adds a specific intensity in every other scene, like you know something that the characters don't, and always keeps your eyes glued to the screen.

Although I can see how a few scenes were fairly slow, and the middle was not particularly engaging, Tarantino definitely had a purpose for each scene, even if I don't have all the answers. Even the smallest of details, like a gun holster of beer or the way the characters drive down the highway, reveals hidden thoughts, feelings, and backstories to the audience. If you do not catch onto these specific details, I can understand how some points seem overindulgent of "the golden age" of Hollywood. But the beautifully nostalgic filming in these moments is what makes this film not only entertaining, but a piece of art.

It's the juxtaposition of Sharron and Dalton's storyline, it's the wonder and the dimensional characters, it's the brilliant manipulation of the audience's emotions, causing you to laugh, scream, and cry (sometimes simultaneously) that makes this film utterly perfect.

The ending leaves you wondering "What if..." over and over again, questioning what reality would look like if these fictional characters of Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth actually existed. And I think that's when I realized how perfect the title was: it's a humorous, fairy-tale (although not completely violent-free) ending to the tragic fate of Hollywood in the 60s...