So.. I went to see Quentin Tarantino’s latest movie Once Upon a Time In Hollywood waaay back on Thursday and I’ve been wrestling with my thoughts and dreading writing a review since then. But here we are, on Tuesday, with me having put far too much thought into a film for a review that far too people will read or think this much thought needs put into any film. The review I kept writing and re-writing in my head kept changing as I thought about the film and how much needed (or didn’t need) to be said. Well, that’s enough pointless hand-wringing….
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood had a pretty vague and nebulous trailer that seemed to deliberately avoid giving anything quite like a traditional plot. I’m here to say… there’s a reason the trailer is vague and that’s because this is one shambling, ambling, fuzzy-headed movie without a real central thesis beyond being about what it’s about. It’s about a nearly washed-up Western star famous in the 50s, struggling to remain relevant by playing heavies in new (1969) movies and tv. He has a friend, his stunt double, who is more his driver and drinking buddy than anything else. Together, they drive around LA, talk, drink, and work on the lot. They do this for about 90 minutes of screen-time, the movie dangerously coming close to what would traditionally be called a plot on a few occasions. The movie is almost three hours though so more does start to creak into action in the second half.
This stroll through someone’s nostalgia for late 60s Hollywood and the movies it made is well acted and it looks great. They did some real set decoration on actual Hollywood locations so good on them for the effort. It’s well produced but I found myself getting antsy for something to happen. But it’s taken me time to reconsider that the movie is basically just about a guy in Hollywood… it’s a character piece mixed with nostalgia goggles. And, given that, I can forgive my desire for more to “happen” since it took some time to realize this was a character piece (until it wasn’t). There were no mistakes in intent… but maybe a lot in catering to an audience.
Because I’m not 100% sure who this movie is for. If you have real-life nostalgia for Hollywood of the late ’60s, I’m sure it’s heaven. It’s like a teenager watching the nostalgia bomb that is Stranger Things, perhaps… something I get innately but they may be mystified by. But, even then, 80s movies still exist in pop culture… the 60s movies shown in this movie are pretty obscure by today’s standards. But that’s cool – that’s Quentin Tarantino’s encyclopedic knowledge of cinema at work. But if I don’t have that direct nostalgia and I’m not a walking movie historian, then what exactly am I watching. And why? I’m not sure the movie really answers that question for “the rest of us”. And I love movies and movie history… I can’t imagine someone who just wants to watch a flick is gonna think for three hours.
But that may also depend on your love or admiration for the movie star talents of Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. For a movie that’s teetering on the edge of a groovy day-glow Hollywood about to fall into the dark 1970s and in a time where some people are saying Hollywood stars don’t matter, this movie argues (fairly convincingly) against that. They are well cast together and are very good in their roles, especially DiCaprio during scenes on set where he’s acting in a movie within the movie… and then reacting to how poorly (or sometimes well) he’s doing.
Now, this movie also stars Margo Robbie as the real life rising star Sharon Tate. As her career is rising, DiCaprio’s is falling so you have a bit of a duality there. But Robbie… well.. she doesn’t get as much to do as the guys… and, for some, her wandering in and out of the picture (and never having a scene with the two leads) will seem pointless. Because if you don’t know the facts about her life, then what she’s doing in the picture will seem pointless and random.
Because this movie is also – and unfortunately – about the Manson Family. What do the Manson Family and Sharon Tate have in common? Well, in the real world, it’s not pretty and this movie is circling that drain for long stretches while otherwise not being about much. And, again, if you don’t know the history, then her presence and that of a bunch of dirty hippies just won’t make sense. And you might think, “of course everyone knows the Manson Family backstory” and I’d reply that you are wrong as there are stories of (probably younger) audience members coming out of the flick confused.
Not that what the movie is working towards is anywhere we really want to go. The deeper the movie goes, and the more the Manson family circles in and out of the movie, the more I got uncomfortable with the direction. If it showed the full Manson Family murders in a Quentin Tarantino style after the generally good-natured amble through Hollywood, that’d be pretty awkward and uncomfortable. Not something the movie had been working toward for the past 2 1/2 hours.
—-SPOILER ALERT———
The Mansion Family does come after the people in Sharon Tate’s subdivision but go to the wrong house. They meet up with Brad Pitt’s stunt man and… well… the violence is abrupt, shocking, disturbing, and weirdly like Tarantino is working off some karmic catharsis on two young ladies and a guy. It’s BRUTAL and it’s disturbing and I can only imagine it exists because Tarantino is pissed off all these years later at the Manson murders and maybe how they killed that era of Hollywood and maybe ended the dream of the 60s.
And don’t get me wrong, I’ve seen a lot of bloody, gory violence in movies and can really appreciate and dig it… but this was one of the most gross and disturbing things I’ve seen. That’s because it’s the work of a master filmmaker working off some pent up rage… but I’m left wondering why. Though that’s at least wondering anything. I’m thinking about it and that’s less than most movies do.
It reminds me of the revenge fantasy at the end of Inglorious Basterds or the ex-slave getting his revenge in Django Unchained. It’s clearly in that ballbark and it’s not like the Mansion family are GOOD people… so it’s weird I was more bothered by it than the other movies. Perhaps those other movies were inherently working up to their endings where this one is not.
—- SPOILER END—–
So, yeah, this is one of my least favorite Tarantino movies. I wish I could say otherwise. I wish I could say, “At least the dialog is that special brand of quippy energy that Tarantino brings… but I didn’t even think that. I can only remember a handful of dialog scenes of any merit… though there are some individual scenes of real tension to fill some of that gap.
But anyway, I think you should probably see the movie anyway if you are a Tarantino fan and/or have a real love for 1960s era Hollywood. Or fine acting. Just beware that it’s not a fast-paced film and it’s more a character and location study than it is anything with much of a forward-driven plot. And that’s intentional and kind of works. But that it’s also about the Manson Family and beware some late-in-the-picture Tarantino violence (something that the movie otherwise lacks, surprisingly enough for the director). Wish I could love it, but only came away tolerating it.
And, there ya go, it’s a damn long review anyway. Sigh.
Score: 68