I don't get 'Once Upon a Time in Hollywood' (liek omg spoilers mun!)

+
In fact I thought the movie was kind of shit, yet I keep hear reviewers give this movie glowing praise and I have to wonder am I missing something or are all these movie reviewers [...] to afraid to admit that not everything that comes out of Tarantino's ass is a nugget of gold?

Personally my money is on the second one as I generally don't have a very high opinion of 'professional' art critics (whether it be movies, video games or paintings), however I am always willing to be proven wrong so I am opening to floor to hear compelling arguments as to why this film is a masterpiece and how I am a big dumb doo doo head for not appreciating it's brilliance.

Generally I have enjoyed most of Tarantino's work (Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds being my favs) and while this film does have its moments and some good dialogue none of these moments really add up to tell a cohesive story of any kind. The whole film feels disjointed and pointless as it introduces plot points that go nowhere and are dismissed almost as soon as they are introduced, and yet despite the film going nowhere it takes a whole 2 hours and 45 minutes to get there, to be honest I have no idea what this film is even supposed to be about? Is it about the Manson family murders? Is it about the careers of Rick Dalton and his stunt double? What relation do any of the events in the film have to each other? What was the point of the Sharon Tate parts of the film other than the foreshadow the ending and what relation do Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth have to the Manson family murders other than being coincidentally at the right place at the right time in an alternate fantasy version of events? Just what exactly was the story that Tarantino was trying to tell here?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't feel cheated by the movie in any way and I was always going to see this movie regardless of what the reviews said or what the trailers showed as I am generally a fan of Tarantino's work and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, in fact I had a feeling this film would not be his best work from the trailers but since it was Tarantino and I was curious I did decide to go see it. However while I am a fan of Tarantino's work I am not going to fan girl over everything he does and I will call out a nugget of shit when I see it, I am just curious as to why this film is getting such high praise when even the people who are praising the film can't even explain how the scenes fit together and what the film is actually about? Am I missing something here?

Edited. -Drac
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DRK3

Forum veteran
I share a similar opinion. Im a huge Tarantino fan (even have a poster of him and his movies), but i think this movie is not as good as his others, and while i think it's not as bad as you described it since it still has some interesting characters and scenes, i think it's being highly overrated just because its Tarantino's.

The biggest problem really is how disjointed the whole movie feels, like you said.
 
Personally, I loved the film. It walked an edge that I thought was going to take a Reservoir Dogs turn. It wound up NOT being directly about the Sharon Tate / Manson murders -- it was a piece of historical fiction that was focused on two imaginary characters.

It was a satirical poke at the rather plastic period of American high-society. We see the self-indulgence and pretense of the social elite of Hollywood at the same time that the Hippie anti-culture was largely being ignored. Using Tarantino's well established stylization, it goes back and forth between humorous and slightly creepy / off-note as the story progresses. I was totally expecting it to get really brutal at the end...which it did...but not in any way that made a heavy, societal statement.

It simply followed the absurdity of its own themes to highlight the ridiculousness of what drove the Sharon Tate massacre and the equal ridiculousness of what it would have meant if things had worked out the other way. Arguably, one could say that the Tate murder was a horrific wake-up call for "high society" in America. (It's often viewed that way when it's addressed.) People at the time were truly under the impression that their wealth and status had somehow elevated them out of reach of the hardships of life. It was more than a simple "bad egg" here and there, it was a truly established culture. The shocking viciousness and violence of the Tate murders was like being hit in the face by a rock for a lot of people. Both the ultra-rich and Hippie culture started to noticeably mellow out after it happened.

So the ending had me literally laughing to tears. THAT is how you "subvert the audience's expectations." (When Dalton runs away from the pool and comes back with the flamethrower, I couldn't breath.) The film simply climaxes by following its own fictional themes, and highlights the period in a completely unexpected way. It's as fantastical as Gulliver's Travels or Animal Farm -- carrying much the same satirical effect -- just set in Hollywood.
 

DRK3

Forum veteran
Well, after your explanation it starts to make sense. I knew very little about that part of american history (if it can be called that), my friends even less and at the end of the movie we were all like 'what was the point of Margot Robbie's storyline?' We werent even sure if it was a fictional character or real one.

Maybe to spectators familiarized with all those events the movie makes more sense, but all other Tarantino movies dont require any previous knowledge to enjoy them to their fullest (maybe some tidbits about WW2 for Basterds, but that's arguable)
 
Well, after your explanation it starts to make sense. I knew very little about that part of american history (if it can be called that), my friends even less and at the end of the movie we were all like 'what was the point of Margot Robbie's storyline?' We werent even sure if it was a fictional character or real one.

Maybe to spectators familiarized with all those events the movie makes more sense, but all other Tarantino movies dont require any previous knowledge to enjoy them to their fullest (maybe some tidbits about WW2 for Basterds, but that's arguable)

This is very fair. Tarantino has taken a decidedly Shakespearean approach to film thus far. Highly stylized, incredibly over-the-top, brilliant mix of positive and negative evocation, and a style that's immediately recognizeable at-a-glance.

This film is much more focused on a purely American context. While I assume pretty much anyone in the world would identify instantly with "mobsters", such as in Reservoir Dogs, or the anti-hero bent on revenge, such as in Kill Bill...

...I don't think it's fair to say that most of the world would be accurately enough aware of the Sharon Tate murder and the "white, picket fence" mentality of American society in the 50's and 60's to understand the twist. (And it was a "twist" ending. Really fascinating in its execution, as it's basically a 3-hour-long, sardonic joke, and like most jokes, the punchline comes at the very end.)
 
Personally, I loved the film. It walked an edge that I thought was going to take a Reservoir Dogs turn. It wound up NOT being directly about the Sharon Tate / Manson murders -- it was a piece of historical fiction that was focused on two imaginary characters.

It was a satirical poke at the rather plastic period of American high-society. We see the self-indulgence and pretense of the social elite of Hollywood at the same time that the Hippie anti-culture was largely being ignored. Using Tarantino's well established stylization, it goes back and forth between humorous and slightly creepy / off-note as the story progresses. I was totally expecting it to get really brutal at the end...which it did...but not in any way that made a heavy, societal statement.

It simply followed the absurdity of its own themes to highlight the ridiculousness of what drove the Sharon Tate massacre and the equal ridiculousness of what it would have meant if things had worked out the other way. Arguably, one could say that the Tate murder was a horrific wake-up call for "high society" in America. (It's often viewed that way when it's addressed.) People at the time were truly under the impression that their wealth and status had somehow elevated them out of reach of the hardships of life. It was more than a simple "bad egg" here and there, it was a truly established culture. The shocking viciousness and violence of the Tate murders was like being hit in the face by a rock for a lot of people. Both the ultra-rich and Hippie culture started to noticeably mellow out after it happened.

So the ending had me literally laughing to tears. THAT is how you "subvert the audience's expectations." (When Dalton runs away from the pool and comes back with the flamethrower, I couldn't breath.) The film simply climaxes by following its own fictional themes, and highlights the period in a completely unexpected way. It's as fantastical as Gulliver's Travels or Animal Farm -- carrying much the same satirical effect -- just set in Hollywood.

That is not something I read into the movie and nor is it really an explanation I buy even after it has been explained to me. I mean I get the divide between Rick Dalton and his stunt double where Rick lives in the lap of luxury while Cliff lives in a trailer despite Cliff doing all the dangerous stuff while Rick takes all the credit, however I just don't buy the angle that it is supposed to be about how high society viewed themselves above the hardships of life. While it is far removed from the struggles that everyday people face in their lives Rick Dalton is still having a mental crisis where he is coming to terms with no longer being the darling of Hollywood and is now instead the punching bag for up and coming stars to make a name for themselves, and while it is true that Sharon Tate is shown to have a relatively care free life, if the goal was to show that nobody is immune to horrible tragedy regardless of their wealth and status, this is kind of undermined by the ending where instead of going through with the grisly murder the Manson gang are shown as a bunch of fuck ups who get made chump meat out of by the 2 main stars of the film while Tate is completely oblivious safe in her mansion.

In any case I am pretty sure the goal was not to highlight how carefree Tate's life was before the murders as it is pretty clear that in this case Tarantino was shit scared of showing Tate in anything less than a positive light which caused him to woefully underuse the character to the point where one has to wonder why she was even included in the film, or at the very least why she is shown to be a main character in the marketing material.

In the end if I got anything from the film it felt like Tarantino's revenge against the Manson family in film format, however it goes about it in such a meandering and roundabout way that one has to wonder if that truly was the goal, if that was the goal then why focus on 2 characters that have nothing to do with Sharon Tate or the Manson family for 2/3rds of the movie and if the movie is about Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth then why does their story go nowhere and end with something that has nothing to do with their story arc throughout the film?

I mean I had a feeling the film would be an alternate history take on the Manson family murders that ends in the Manson family getting fucked up as this is Tarantino after all, however I am still confused at why this story took 3 hours to tell despite going nowhere and ending with something that is completely unrelated to the other events of the film.
 
That is not something I read into the movie and nor is it really an explanation I buy even after it has been explained to me. I mean I get the divide between Rick Dalton and his stunt double where Rick lives in the lap of luxury while Cliff lives in a trailer despite Cliff doing all the dangerous stuff while Rick takes all the credit, however I just don't buy the angle that it is supposed to be about how high society viewed themselves above the hardships of life. While it is far removed from the struggles that everyday people face in their lives Rick Dalton is still having a mental crisis where he is coming to terms with no longer being the darling of Hollywood and is now instead the punching bag for up and coming stars to make a name for themselves, and while it is true that Sharon Tate is shown to have a relatively care free life, if the goal was to show that nobody is immune to horrible tragedy regardless of their wealth and status, this is kind of undermined by the ending where instead of going through with the grisly murder the Manson gang are shown as a bunch of fuck ups who get made chump meat out of by the 2 main stars of the film while Tate is completely oblivious safe in her mansion.

Well, I would challenge anyone to find a solid example of Tate being anything other than a decent, human being. One with an incredible amount of privilege and wealth. The whole reason that the massacre was so popularized in America was because it came literally out of left field -- the victim was not one of the petty, self-indulgent, phony, hyper-insecure, celebrities living a life of luxury while wondering how they could get even more "famous" (Dalton) -- not one of the Hollywood graspers that had a twisted and sordid past, leading to a life of pretense and flaccid "infamy" (Booth) -- it was one of the culture's darlings...

...a 26-year-old beauty, nearly 9 months pregnant, with some pretty impressive acting chops, that was willing to be simultaneously wealthy, dedicated, decent, forgiving, and welcoming of others with open arms and no pretenses.


In any case I am pretty sure the goal was not to highlight how carefree Tate's life was before the murders as it is pretty clear that in this case Tarantino was shit scared of showing Tate in anything less than a positive light which caused him to woefully underuse the character to the point where one has to wonder why she was even included in the film, or at the very least why she is shown to be a main character in the marketing material.

And rightfully so. I don't think it's possible to drudge up any dirt on Tate's life. She was a relative nobody that rose to fame on her own merits...caught the (arguably disloyal) attentions of a superstar (Polanski)...and was willing to carry the personal hardship gracefully until she suffered a horrific death at the hands of cult fanatics for reasons that even Charles Manson has yet to explain in terms that can be objectively or subjectively understood...


In the end if I got anything from the film it felt like Tarantino's revenge against the Manson family in film format, however it goes about it in such a meandering and roundabout way that one has to wonder if that truly was the goal, if that was the goal then why focus on 2 characters that have nothing to do with Sharon Tate or the Manson family for 2/3rds of the movie and if the movie is about Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth then why does their story go nowhere and end with something that has nothing to do with their story arc throughout the film?

...I mean...if the Manson murders had been focused on some greedy, superficial duck that was willing to throw one of his only friends to the curb to cling with his fingernails to "status"...or if the murders had targeted a person that had some real, scandalous dirt in their past...that would be one thing. But they didn't. They targeted a completely innocent person in such a heinous fashion that it shocked an entire aristocracy AND a counterculture...more or less...straight...

...I mean...what if the insane individuals that committed the crime had been stopped and the "Hollywood Elite" culture had been allowed to continue...

...oooOOOHHHhhh...!

:mega-facepalm:

:ROFL:

(^ That's not a reflection on others' interpretations; that's my view on Tarantino's intended dramatic action for the piece.)


In the end if I got anything from the film it felt like Tarantino's revenge against the Manson family in film format, however it goes about it in such a meandering and roundabout way that one has to wonder if that truly was the goal, if that was the goal then why focus on 2 characters that have nothing to do with Sharon Tate or the Manson family for 2/3rds of the movie and if the movie is about Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth then why does their story go nowhere and end with something that has nothing to do with their story arc throughout the film?

I mean I had a feeling the film would be an alternate history take on the Manson family murders that ends in the Manson family getting fucked up as this is Tarantino after all, however I am still confused at why this story took 3 hours to tell despite going nowhere and ending with something that is completely unrelated to the other events of the film.

Again, I'd argue that like Shakespeare, Tarantino's approach to drama is not to "glorify" anything. He doesn't paint his characters in some "holy" light. He paints them eating dirt. He paints them crying in their bedrooms as teenagers. He paints them taking a crap in the woods and wondering what they can wipe with.

If one watches the film with an expectation that it's going to fulfill a preconception or accepted stance on the events...one will probably be confused. If one realizes that humanity is a @#$%!ng mess driven by oft-conflicting impulses that leave us constantly vulnerable and largely unable to justify or accept who and what we actually are...one will laugh one's toofus off by the end.

So, I'd say that, in conclusion, the film was meant as a reflection on (primarily American) mentality concerning the Tate murders. Is it truly that shocking? Or do we not really understand how ridiculous our cultures were at that time. And yet, we were basically still people trying to make our way through it. Were the lives of "Rick Dalton" or "Cliff Booth" really that far off from some of the petty concerns that "average" people get absorbed in? Was the Manson family truly driven by impulses that we can't understand? And what if the mruders had gone the other way? What...would we celebrate it? Or would it have been shoveled under the rug so that the pretense of the Hollywood Elite culture would have continued. Would anyone have remembered the cultists that were so brutally murdered in a Hollywood mansion?

Hmmm...

That's the magic of really good satire. It makes you laugh out-loud...then immediately question why you were laughing. (But that doesn't stop the film from being gut-bustingly hilarious at the end! Seriously, that was one of the most perfectly set up finales in film history. [I'm laughing again, even now.] In the end, it's ultimately theatre.)


That's Hollywood for ya.

^ YES! Hahahahaha...!
 
Top Bottom