Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood Review

Quentin Tarantino is back with his ninth film. That number depending on who you ask. If you ask Tarantino himself, he calls "Kill Bill Vol. 1" and "Kill Bill Vol. 2" as one movie, thus refers to this as his ninth film. And I know it's hard to argue with the director himself, but I'm rebellious because I see those as two movies because they are two very different experiences. Also Tarantino technically made a film called "My Best Friend's Birthday" as his "first" film, which is a partially lost movie wherein only 36 of the movie's 70 minutes exists due to a lab fire. And Tarantino directed segments of the 1995 film "Four Rooms and the 2005 film "Sin City." But sure. He's only made nine movies. And he also says he's going to retire after his 10th movie, so this lets him do one more. Is it going to be a Star Trek movie? Or something else? And is he going to make that movie and stay true to his word? I highly doubt that. But we shall see. Tarantino is certainly an interesting human being, but he makes great movies. And they're so unique that they're pretty much a genre of their own. Before "The Hateful Eight" was released, I did a marathon of all of his films. That was quite the experience. A mostly enjoyable one. Thus I was excited for "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood." Or at least cautiously optimistic.

The thing here that had me a bit hesitant is that, when this movie was announced, I was under the impression that it was going to be a movie about the Manson Family. That had me nervous because Tarantino loves his over the top, graphic violence done mostly for entertainment purposes. I'm certainly not against the idea of doing a movie about the Manson Family. Crime dramas are kinda my thing. I have an odd fascination with serial killers. I love learning about the psychology behind them. But one thing you DON'T do is take a movie about a serial killer and glorify what happened for entertainment purposes. You have to take a very careful, respectful approach, especially when people are alive who were directly affected by the crimes that were committed. I could envision a movie in my head where Tarantino taking on the Manson Family would be very inappropriate, to say the least. So I needed to figure out what this movie really was before I allowed myself to be excited. When the first teaser arrived, it was advertised as a lighthearted comedy about late-60's Hollywood? Say what? It seemed like false advertising. The official trailer made it seem like a movie that showcased how quickly your luck can run out. That seemed better. But it still felt like they were hiding something.

Through all this, Tarantino at some point stated that this is NOT a movie about the Manson Family. And that just had me confused because Charles Manson and his croonies were all cast in the movie. And Margot Robbie was playing Sharon Tate. So how could that be accurate? Could those comments be a smokescreen? When the movie was released at the Cannes Film Festival on May 21, 2019, Tarantino essentially made everyone there swear an oath that they would not reveal certain details about the film, which made me feel like he was hiding something. Thus I had no idea what to expect. And, well, I feel like I definitely need to zip my lips after seeing it, making this review a bit tricky. But what I will say is that this is a lot of movie. First off, the run time is 2 hours 41 minutes. I was initially thinking that was one of his longer movies, but "The Hateful Eight" is 2 hours 48 minutes and "Django Unchained" is 2 hours 45 minutes. Several other films of his cross the 2 hours 30 minutes mark. So it seems like he just doesn't have the ability to make short movies. That aside, not only do I say this is a lot of movie because of the run time, but I also say this because because there are a lot of layers in this movie. It's not just a long movie. There's a lot going on here.

The thing that initially jumps out at me is that my thoughts about the initial teaser ended up being wrong. I got the impression there that they were advertising a much different film than what they had. I thought that this was going to be a very dark film that might turn a lot of people off who were less familiar with Tarantino and just went in for a lighthearted romp about late 60's Hollywood. As it turns out, that's a lot more accurate to what this movie is than what I was expecting. While the cast list in this movie is quite large, the story is centered around the characters played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt. Leo plays a fictional actor named Rick Dalton and Brad plays his stunt double Cliff Booth. Everything that happens in the movie is centered around their story. In fact, a high percentage of the movie's huge cast are cameos from big name actors because Tarantino has such a high pedigree at this point that even making a brief appearance as a minor character is seen as quite the honor. Thus he can cast people like Al Pacino, Kurt Russell and Bruce Dern and only use them in very minor roles. But yeah, this is Leo and Brad's movie. The best Hollywood team-up since "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid"? Yeah, I don't know about that. And yes, I have heard that stated. But regardless, this is a great team-up.

On that note, this movie is an excellent love letter to 60's Hollywood. In fact, this movie tries to be so 60's that I would comfortable call this 60's nostalgia vomit. I don't necessarily mean that as a negative thing, but like "Stranger Things" is pure 80's nostalgia vomit, cramming as much 80's down your throat as physically possible, "Once Upon a Time" does the same thing with the 60's, even to the point of mimicking the font and credits style from the 60's. There's lot of 60's music. A lot of 60's advertising. A lot of 60's film posters, movies and TV shows played at certain points. And we get to have a behind-the-scenes look at the inner workings of Hollywood at the time through the eyes of this fictional character of Rick Dalton. In this fictional universe, he was one of the huge stars at the time and loved playing essentially the same exact character in every movie or TV show he was in. That's the type of thing that people back then ate up. Your John Waynes and Clint Eastwoods of the world were huge, not necessarily because of their versatility as actors, but because they were great at playing one specific character and people loved seeing them play that in every movie. In the movie, when a director tries to disguise Rick Dalton, Rick Dalton is confused. How will they know its him?

I found myself really enjoying this aspect of the movie. It's a fairly unconventional style of film without your typical narrative structure, but it reminded me a lot of a good version of the Coen Brothers' "Hail, Caesar!" The latter film is essentially a week in the life of a fictional 50's film studio. The problem I had with that movie is that it felt like a sequence of disconnected events. The individual aspects were extremely entertaining, but the movie as a whole felt pointless and dull. "Once Upon a Time," on the other hand, strikes a much better balance. Most of it is a day in the life of Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth (or perhaps a couple of days), but both of them were just so entertaining for different reasons. Leo played Rick Dalton in a very eccentric, crazy way. His high mood swings and hyper nature was hilarious. I didn't know Leo could be so funny in a role. He's usually in very serious, dramatic roles. I would almost say he's a great method actor. But a comedic actor? I wouldn't really call this movie a comedy, per se, but there were a lot of funny moments and they were mostly because of Leo's eccentric nature. I was laughing quite hard during his temper tantrums and emotional breakdowns because he was just so off the wall and bizarre.

Brad, on the other hand, was quite the opposite. While Leo was crazy and eccentric, Brad was calm and collected. He didn't seem to have much care in the world, but everything he did do felt very calculated and purposeful. The balance between these two are perfect, thus the on-screen chemistry is fantastic. Just watching these two spend time together as they navigate their regular routines is extremely enjoyable. And it happens quite a bit. In fact, this is unconventional narrative because much of it is these two hanging out, talking, spending time together. When Leo is busy at work and Brad doesn't have anything to do, watching them go their separate ways and do their own thing is also quite enjoyable. If the movie was just this, I don't think I would have much of a problem with that. Granted, there were times where I think Tarantino could've practiced his film editing techniques. While there is a lot going on in this movie, this didn't need to be quite as long as it was. They could've cut 30-40 minutes out and the movie could've had the same effect. But I think Tarantino was having so much time playing around in the 60's that he didn't know what to cut. He was also enjoying giving Leo and Brad so much to do and, for the most part, I was totally bought in. Chilling with them was fun.

Some would claim that this is all the movie is about. And I can't really argue that too much. If you love the 60's, then you'll love this movie. In fact, that's why I think this is going to play very well at the Oscars. I'm not predicting wins at this point, especially since we don't know what the big players are, but the Academy loves movies that are an ode to classic cinema. Since most of the voters are old, white males, they essentially love being able to pat themselves on the back by saying how good they all were back in the day. Thus this could at the very least pick up a whole bunch of Oscar nominations. But no, this is not all this movie is about. Because, remember, the Manson Family are cast in this movie? Charles Mason, Tex Watson, Partricia Krenwinkel, Susan Atkins, Linda Kasabian, Squeaky Fromme, George Spahn, Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Fykowski, Roman Polanski and others on both sides of the fence are all in this movie. So to say this is NOT about the Manson Family would be a lie. Or a misrepresentation of the movie. To what capacity, though, and how are they used? That's where I'm going to bite my tongue. I have so much to say, but I can't say any of it. Not in this review, anyways. But a spoiler review might be on its way.

Given that you're going to see a final score at the end of this paragraph, I suppose a vague conclusion of my thoughts on the Manson Family aspect of the film is a necessary thing. If Tarantino had done a completely inappropriate portrayal of this, my grade wouldn't be very positive. But my grade is going to be positive. So I'll just say that, from what I hear, the Sharon Tate family or estate read over this script before it was made and gave their approval of what Tarantino was planning on doing. After watching the movie, I do as well. I honestly think this is a very excellently constructed film that gives a satisfying conclusion. It doesn't just wander into nothingness like "Hail, Caesar!" did. Everything has a point to it. The acting, especially by Leo and Brad, is top notch. Tarantino's directing is superb. It's a well-written script that's executed in a very rewarding fashion. And I think it's the type of movie that has so many layers to it that people can walk out having very different takeaways from what they just watched and I'd say that's pretty fantastic. Given that Tarantino's filmography includes the like of "Pulp Fiction," "Django Unchained" and "Kill Bill Vol. 1," there's obviously limitations as to how high up this can go in a Tarantino ranking, but it will probably wind up pretty high. My grade for it is a 9/10.