Watch ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD: amzn.to/2YdviYh Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
In an interview with Paul Thomas Anderson, Tarantino said that he wrote Sharon Tate to not be a Tarantino character, and wanted to respect who she really was as a real person, representing normality, not putting her into a plot, because that was what was robbed from her. Just living her life. She has become an actress who has been consigned to history completely and utterly by her tragic death. He wanted people to think about her differently and save her from her tombstone. I personally think that Tarantino's handling of Tate and Robbie's spectacular performance was brilliant, and shows some real maturity and growth on Tarantino's part.
I agree, and I almost feel if Tarintino had put his type of dialogue in her mouth people would be saying he was being disrespectful to her memory for turning her into a Tarintino character rather than the real person.
ANN TUMBLR She is very intelligent and articulate however, she seems a little too partial. She seems bias against QT, Leonardo and Pitt. Like she doesn’t want to like their work, no matter the offering.
Why is she so underrated? She’s excellent at what she does! I hope the future is bright for you!! She’s beautiful and smart... Have you ever considered making a film?
Right let's teach a whole new generation that Manson was some loser who didn't do much. He didn't kill a couple and ordered the murder of Tate etc. Great message
One of the best movies of the decade. The atmosphere in this movie is on another level. I saw it three times, and every time is better. And no, Tarantino is way better writer then director.
Robert Lipski OMG thank you! So many people have said he is a better director than writer which to me is preposterous. He is able to direct the way he does and the actors can glean so much from or for their performances because of what is on the written page.
@flmvdvsrg The problem is not just literal (he released two, roughly two hour films) but that the singular film will feel like a fairly different experience - sitting through the pacing of 4 hours verus 2 hours; the iconic fight scene remaining in colour rather than switching to B&W; the animated scene reaching Manga levels of peak violence; and discovering new information at the same time as The Bride rather than before her, halfway through. In reality, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Whole Bloody Affair are three different movies and it's better to trust the tale rather than the teller.
It's refreshing too that she isn't another tedious basement dweller with the standard issue annoying voice. But I agree she speaks about film very well
Personnaly I really like Brad Pitt for making good career choices. He has been in a lot of outstanding movies and is always doing a good job. At worst he doesn't ruin a character. Yes he was great in The tree of life but what about Babel? I found him incredibly touching in this film!
I love Cliff Booth. Brad Pitt has never been cooler. For me 1969, actually 1967, was the beginning of the Second Golden Age of Hollywood. The time when the studio system broke down and directors did what they wanted. You wouldn't have The French Connection or Bonnie and Clyde, or Deliverance (and many others) a few years before.
Love the way you articulate film. Can't wait to hear what you think of this one. I liked it, but didn't love. It had some excellent scenes throughout though.
I think Margo’s character was meant to drive home her innocence to contrast the tragedy that is/was awaiting her. I found myself thinking repeatedly that she didn’t deserve the violence that she suffered. That she should have been free to just enjoy her life. So, in that for me she represented the innocence of the time, more symbol than character.
So happy to have discovered this channel. Very, very intelligent … I don’t always agree … IMHO … “Once upon Time” was a masterpiece….. as brilliant as you are, I don’t know how you can be more enthusiastic about the Over-acting, Scene-Chewing Nicolas Cage, and be so down on so many other accomplishments actors. Nonetheless, You❤ are enlightened, and your videos are, for me, required insightful viewing.
It sucks in fact the whole movie sucks. When I saw the trailer before the feature presentation of Wayne's World 2 on Vhs tape I new the actual movie was going to be awful.
A very young Dicaprio as Arnie in What's Eating Gilbert Grape is not only one of the worst acting performances I've seen in a movie but also one of the most annoying. He tries to be funny but hes just not.
Only just catching up with this review and have to say it’s spot on once again. You always make me consider things I may have missed in your reviews. Incisive, insightful and hugely watchable. Kudos 🙌
illTANK idk dude, his writing style is certainly original and back in his 90s movies it seemed pretty cool but it’s grown a little played out and really doesn’t work sometimes, Death Proof for example and some of hateful eight. It might also be the fact that it’s been copied so often and done poorly but he’s definitely somewhat overrated as a writer sometimes
@@cultmoss4482 he's a great writer because his dialogue is realistic and fun. other writers get praised for complexity and how well they hide exposition, but QT has a simplicity to his work that makes it easy for anyone to understand whats going on and have a much more fun time. it's like you are hanging out with the characters he created whereas with most other writers you would be begging them to move onto the next big plot point. my favorite quality of his is he isn't a "type" writer.
@@TankLCDx I think she's talking about the narrative aspect, not the dialogue. I agree with her in that sense. His stories are usually interesting because of how he narrates them, and not so much for the story itself. To me, at least.
@@letmonge good point, but i dont think one negates the other. i feel like he sets his films up on a smaller scale so you are spending more time with characters and not thinking about whats taking place. the fact that he can literally take any plot and make it interesting is great in and of itself for me. i dont see me sitting in front of a screen for half of tarantinos movies if they were done by anybody else, which might work to your point. sorry if my interpretation is a lil bias, idk if im just being a fanboy at this point lol
Great film. I would love to see an extended version with more "Manson" scenes (The actor said that they filmed more of them) though. I don't know about all of you, but I could sit through a Tarantino film that is about three hours long. At the same time though, I also wish there were more "Bruce Lee" scenes (even just a couple more) but that is okay. The film is great how it turned out, but it seems like he did leave a lot of stuff out. Hopefully there is an extended edition. As much as I loved it (I give it an 8.5 out of 10) the editing seemed rushed.
Wow. Such an insightful analysis. I think you’re quite right about the post-Jackie Brown films, but I noticed myself finding reasons to forgive him each time simply because I found the films to be campy and entertaining. For Kill Bill, I remember thinking, “well, this is his cross-genre love letter to films that inspired him” expecting he would go back to relative seriousness after. He didn’t.
Thanks for discussing this. I've caught "Once Upon a Time ..." a few times on satellite television. I enjoy it. For me, the film picked up steam about an hour in, when Leonardo DiCaprio is filming the TV Western and goes on that self-loathing rant in his trailer. I love his use of period music in this. He picks great tunes and avoids the obvious tracks that Hollywood loves to use for period pieces set in the late '60s. I like the dialogue, too. It works for me. Shawn R., Mo-Mutt Music
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is ultimately defies expectations. There is really no plot, it's a series of interconnected skits. It's also kind of a hang out film. Tarantino wants you to chill back and enjoy the scenery, thus why the pace is so tedious, there is no quest for revenge or big score, it's a nostalgia fix. It's not Tarantino's greatest film but it's an incredible achievement. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Hi Maggie it’s a classic review. I want ask you a question my favourite actors are those who can express every emotions through their eyes and subtle facial expressions which male actor according to u stands out in this criteria
couldn't agree more with your assessment of DiCaprio. I've never been a fan of his, and you've articulated why very well. However, his two performances for Tarantino have been very compelling and enjoyable.
Although not much happens, this movie is definitely happening! 😌🤗🌻✌️ I enjoyed it overall, despite it not being perfect. Seen it twice, & look forward to owning it to my Tarantino collection. What makes me love this movie so much, is that it's NOT a sad movie! It's a feel good movie to watch when your feeling down on your luck. I ate nachos & popcorn & drank my Dr. Pepper & felt joy watching it. It didn't bring me an ounce of sadness😊 Plus Let's ALL give a round of applause for Cliffs Pitbull for helping save the night from a psycho massacre! CHOMP!!!😌😂🐕 The brotherly love from Rick & Cliff, the 1969 backdrop, the SOUNDTRACK!! I've been listening to the soundtrack without end. Margaret Qualley is SUPER cute, even though she's in it briefly. Just GREAT fun!🤗 Your TOTALLY gonna like this comment. I can feel it! 😂😂😂😂
Excellent review. Your criticism of the shallow presentation of Sharon Tate is a relatively common one and I have seen very few who have complimented this choice. But Tarantino can give a character one line and with it an encyclopedic knowledge of who they are ("garcon means boy"). He also wanted this movie to be a "tribute" to Tate, so one would have to at least consider that if he has not gone insane, then this was not accidental. For example, many of the complaints about it say that we didn't get to know Sharon, and you specifically called it a "waste". But both of those things apply to the real Sharon Tate, who was cut down so brutally at the age of 25. It was a waste. And we didn't get to know her. Given Tarantino's actual IQ and writing IQ, and the fact that she "lives" in this movie, it's too much of a coincidence to not have been intentional.
I like your mention of ("garcon means boy") line in Pulb Fiction and how Tarantino could make a character out of a tiny bit of a scene. That's called a great attention to details. re Sharo Tate depiction in the movie, Tarantino said exactly what you've just said in interview with director Paul Thomas Anderson.
MOFOSmackdownTheater I think I can help you find it. It was more of a recorded audio conversation. Here is a link: www.indiewire.com/2019/08/quentin-tarantino-paul-thomas-anderson-once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-podcast-1202168301/
I would recommend that you watch Brad Pitt in Assassination of Jesse James. It is a masterpiece with great performances from Pitt and Casey Affleck, along with a stunning Deakins cinematography.
Maybe my favorite Tarantino movie. A movie that I find more realistic and not so heavy with dialogue and style, even though it has both. Another thing that I can practically guarantee you, and this is a Tarantino speciality, it that it gets even better the 2nd time around and is totally re watchable for a fairly long movie. To do something with film that is fresh, is probably the hardest thing to accomplish, even more so than being just a brilliant movie. Loved it, had a subtlety to it that I really dug, and then it also gives you those hit you over the head moments.
I feel the same way about Babylon. I didn’t really like it the first time I watched it, but 8 months later I’m wanting to watch it again for reasons unknown.
I really love this review. I completely agree with your feelings of Brad and Leonardo. They have potential, but never knocked me out. Brad is better. Tate was nothing in the picture, but it was about people around her. I'm a Helter Skelter fanatic and it did veer my expectations. I like that. I was thinking it was going to be this Manson murders thing, but it's completely other. If it was all about Tate, that would be predictable. It's all about outside of it and that is really interesting.
I loved the film. Honestly it's in my top 5 favorite films of all time. I could see why people would think Margot Robbie was wasted. I don't feel that way though. Now I am biased a bit I love QT. But the way I see it is everyone sees Tate as a tragic figure because of what happened. Rightly so. I believe QT wants to depict who Tate was. A young beautiful full of life woman. This plays into the ending we love seeing the Manson Family getting what they deserved. In real life Tate unfortunately is gone. But this film like you said creates happiness. Overall I loved the film so much. I am a history buff so the whole 1969 feel had me invested. The classic cars, the amazing music, the feel of California, etc. I love when Cliff Booth just rides his car and we see the city. I also loved the ending and the relationship between Dalton and Booth.
If you thought Margot Robbie was wasted what about Al Pacino he was totally wasted he should had been given more meat with his character.I like Brad Character very suspenseful I thought his character was going to get killed off when he went to Spahn Ranch.
I agree with you, the movie seems like the representation of the life that Tarantino wanted to live, and the nostalgia about the old ways of deaing with cinema. That's why it feels like a very ''personal'' movie but not in the way that you say this is a TRADEMARK Tarantino movie, it doesn't have many of his own touches in it cause he wanted to keep that world untouched i guess. Although i didn't go crazy for it, i enjoyed it, especially the two characters Rick and Cliff and their great relationship. It left me with an urge to rewatch it at some point.
Good review. I wonder how you might feel after seeing it again. Sharon Tate is more of a spirit that inhabits this movie, but she has significant parallels with Rick Dalton’s development. The pay off at the end is not just that Sharon lives and that her baby is born, but that Rick is born as a real person and not just a self-absorbed TV actor. Or at least he’s busy being born, as Dylan might say. And yes, this is Tarantino reflecting on his own life, getting married and having a baby. I think he’s actually saying that we can’t change the past, but we can change the future by changing ourselves. It’s more about where Hollywood and culture are going. It’s inly his 9th movie. We’ll see if they let him make a 10th.
I think maybe the issue you have with this film and maybe other reviewers is that he trades his usual Tarantino heady, philosophical dialogue between characters for visuals. In most of his films it's the banter between the actors that becomes the narrative, or the basis for a storyline. Instead we see the fading glory of the city, the rise of violence in movies and in a sense a loss of innocence. I disagree about the Margo Robbie portrayal of Sharon Tate. Her presence in the movie is more about symbolism than a literal presentation or a biopic of her. Instead she represents an idealized personification of beauty and perfection. It plays like a fable or a fantasized version of a memory. To me there's this theme of an era fading being exchanged for another one.
I'm reading the novelization of this film right now because I want to see if it's better to read a Tarantino film than it is to watch it. I've no plans to see the movie because I swore I'd never watch a Tarantino film again after seeing the last half of Inglorious Bastards on TV.
Interesting. I went back & watched your initial reaction to Inglourious Basterds because I was curious what your criticisms were. At the time you seemed to love the film and Tarantino himself as a director. I’m just curious what changed. I personally think Inglourious Basterds is Tarantino’s most masterful film among a career of mostly excellent work. I would definitely be interested to hear a sort of updated re-review of Inglourious Basterds, just to see if maybe I’m missing something. I really enjoy your vids by the way. They’re always very thoughtful and thought provoking. I’m definitely not trying to be confrontational at all, just genuinely interested. ✌️
Makes me wonder if Shutter Island would be even better with a different actor. Never really thought about it since I love the movie so much just as it is. I actually think Mark Ruffalo was just as important as Leo & is the reason I can rewatch it so many times. You get the feeling that those 2 really are close partners with a history.
Have you seen The Basketball Diaries ? Even today I think it's one of DiCaprio's best performances and he was like 16 years old! One of the best portrayals of heroin addiction and I love Jim Carroll.
I really liked the ending because Tarantino was showing one way out of the end or the era, which was the Leonardo character following Clint Eastwood's trajectory of going from TV western to spaghetti western success and subsequently branching out. When he meets the neighbors it shows him realizing he could do more.
Don't forget about Sayuri. She should get the academy award for her role as Brandy. ;) All kidding aside I think your evaluation of the ending was spot on.
Can you define what you mean by "a cerebral performer"? Also I went to see the movie without knowing who Sharon Tate was and as such found her character totally redundant since her true history was changed.
I really thought this movie was crap, just a nostalgia piece, like something teenagers would put together: Batman vs. the Manson family. Lancer as a tv show was average at best but because QT thought it was good we should like it to.
The idea of insulating and compartmentalizing roles in filmmaking to where writers are writers and directors are directors tended to result in a stagnation in variety and creativity. By the time Tarantino, Richard Linklater and Kevin Smith came along many film critics noticed how film schools produced people who read all the same textbooks about how to write a film, same 3-act structures beat-for-beat hundreds of times over. Some filmmakers, they get to a point where they constitute every aspect of what they create. As with the Coens and other auteurs, it is beside the point after calling them auteurs to say their career would've been better or worse if they just picked a lane and stayed with it. It's disconcerting hearing anyone at this point talking about Tarantino as separate from his writing. Only Tarantino makes Tarantino films, for better and/or for worse.
his music soundtracks help his movies huge and his dialog. Bastards my fav. Once Upon intro the best as it captures the times. then devolves into mindless violence. of course Bastards does too. Pitt was wonderful in A River... yes Leo is good as a cartoon character, but good in Blood Diamond. the actress portraying Tate is a sad small copy. you're right on! Tate is the focus of the movie and yet she is just a void in the movie with all playing around this void. and the real darkness of the hippy era was the cia involvement in it not at all touched on in the film.
Margot Robbie's one-note character is one of the things that left an impression on me. By having her this way, Tarantino let us invest our own ideal into her. In a sense, then, she belonged to no one and all of us. He was absolutely objectifying her, but I think in a way that was meant to memorialize her. I think he felt a real sorrow for her.
4:23. Honestly Ive always kinda thought that too, his early performances especially, titanic and Romeo and Juliet 🤦♂️. But even in performances later on like Shutter Island and low key even in inception he’s not my favourite. He’s just too dramatic and plays the roles too strong I guess. I do like him in the Departed and I also think he deserved his Oscar for the Revenant, he’s definitely a good actor but seems overrated.
tarantino did was he captured thr essence of 1969 the freewheeling breezy feeling of the time , Brad pitt speeding along with cool music, the sun was in those days hot, the sky had a bright hazy quality to it, no worries seemingly as hollywood was wrapped up in the times of late 1960s. Brad Pitt was a stand up guy in the film and you felt you were watching not an actor but the real guy. i thought it was a wonderful film as i said capturing hollywood perfectly that summer when long hair ruled girls and guys hitchhiking up and down the strip, things like the vietnam war, racism,sexism just was not on the minds of people in 1969 hollywood. so many other things i could say but another time. great video thanks.
I'm a huge Tarantino fan, and love his nerdism and technically he is quite a master. That said, I think your criticism of his indulgences has high merit. You are wrong about the portrayal of Sharon Tate however. Every "manson" movie has treated her as a victim which is easy. Tarantino just made her a ray of light as someone who was up and coming as a starlet that Hollywood used to embrace, but as the tide was turning in 69, it was a light that was never to be, SO, by giving her a small player part, he was truly sticking to a fairy tale and not real life, as opposed to the fairy tale "real life" portrayal of the two male fictional characters. It's all so complicated. Lol. Tarantino movies always encourage discussion and analysis. Love your point of view and I look forward to all your reviews. ✌❤
My biggest gripe is how he white knights on behalf of other racial or religious groups, takes me right out of the film. Yet, Jackie Brown is his best film.
I haven't seen the movie but if had to guess Tarantino doesn't see it as white knighting but what feel right to him. I can relate up to point if can help or do what is right. Shouldn't I?
This film is a masterpiece. Such a great feeling walking out of this movie... I just wish we had a movie with this much love of pure cinema and not Disney fast food trash, reboots, remakes and sequels weekly.
Hi Maggie. I love seeing you again. Now, I disagree with Margot Robbie’s character complains (which is not only yours). ***SPOILERS*** I don’t think this movie is about “Leo & Brad” (as many describe it). Those two go separate ways for a big portion of the movie. From my point of view this movie is about 3 different stories: Rick Dalton’s, Cliff Booth’s and Sharon Tate’s. The first story is about a middle age actor’s struggling to survive in a transitioning Hollywood, and a beautiful rendition to “western” and “spaghetti western”. The second story is an exploration into a “tough guy” stuntman, an amazing visual time-travel to the 60s LA streets, to the “Americana” culture and a mystery story involving the Manson Family. The third story is shown from the perspective of an observer. It’s not an exploration into Sharon Tate’s personal life and problems. It’s not study of character. Tarantino decided instead to make her character “minimalist”: graceful, warm-hearted, innocent, Tarantino places the camera behind her while she takes us wherever her impulses decide to make her go: to the middle of a dancing floor at The Playboy Mansion, crossing the street to watch a movie theater posters, to a bookstore, to the theater again to see herself in awe listening to people reaction to her movie. All those scenes involve little dialogue but a lot of walking. She’s like our host and guide through the film. Her character is shaped not so much on what she says but on what she does, and her constant smile and optimism. She moves freely without any restraints or regrets, wherever she wants. That’s why at the end of the movie I felt a little relief on knowing that she was safe and nothing bad happened to her.
I love me some Brad Pitt and leonardo DiCaprio but I fully understand your critiques of them and have had similar thoughts. But, for me, when it comes to film I personally try not to be too critical in terms of examining all of their parts individually. I want to hear the music and not the instrument. Its what helps me deal with weaker or misplaced acting performances. I wonder how you felt about Brad pitt's performance in the assassination of Jesse james by the coward Robert ford.
I always enjoy hearing your take on films. The first time I saw the film, I felt the tension and dread as the Manson family murderers ascended Cielo Drive. I was afraid Cliff would be too high and Rick would be too drunk to intervene, and tragedy would strike and both the audience and characters would be helpless witnesses. (My uncle who has lived his entire life in California and was a Sharon Tate fan at the time of the murder even left the theater because he couldn't bear to watch what he thought was going to happen; when he heard laughter while standing in the lobby, he ended up returning, somewhat confused.) What ended up happening was far more interesting as I saw Tarantino getting his revenge on cultural critics who want to villify entertainment-makers for their depictions of violence. The gal who gets the flamethrower is not coincidentally the one who offers up the rationale for why they should kill Rick Dalton, one of the TV personalities who "taught them how to murder." The first time I saw the film, the ending and the title appearing on-screen made me see how Tarantino was making a "true" Hollywood, happily-ever-after, fairy tale of an ending. When Maurice Jarre's “Miss Lily Langtry" starts playing, and the gates to the Polanski-Tate household are opened, there is that ascent of Dalton and Sebring, and the camera pans over the darkened trees, it looks like something from a Grimm's fairy tale. This is the historical happy ending, the way we wish history could have gone. (Much like the 2016 election...) The second time I saw the film, I noticed the slow zoom on Dalton as he is standing in the cul-de-sac, looking up at the stars. There is a zoom-cut to the back of his head and shoulders and then Jay Sebring asks, "Hey man, what happened?!?" My theory is that this final two minutes of the film is the fictional fantasy/fairy tale for Dalton. Despite his Italian film sojourn, he is planning to return to TV once pilot season begins, but after the most messed-up experience of having his home invaded, it seems to me he is thinking, "Hey, maybe with all the commotion, the violence, the noise, and hubbub, maybe my famous neighbors will be curious about me and ask what happened. Wouldn't it be grand if they invited me over to hear about all this messed-up stuff?" And then it does happen. He's instantly invited into a castle in the Cielo/sky, presumably to become part of a Hollywood elite. What a beautiful ending. I don't find it cynical, but rather aching poignant and bittersweet because both the historical revisionism and the fictional character's fantasy point to a deep yearning within people to wish that historical and personal tragedies could be averted and history changed, although once it's done, we know it never can be. I would welcome your thoughts on this interpretation.
Whether she admits your analysis is correct, it absolutely is. The Fairy-Tale is HIS and Cliff's. It's not complicated. It's right there staring everyone in the face. The fact that she considers the end 'sad' , was enough for me to discount her entire outlook on the film. She didn't 'see' it correctly and therefore cannot understand it correctly. You did and do.
I didn't enjoy it at all. Everything that made his earlier works like Reservoir Dogs so great are in complete reverse here. The pacing is glacial, there are so many inconsequential filler scenes, the dialogue is not particularly memorable, the stories don't particularly intertwine in any clever way. It's just all incredibly bloated and safe.
@deepfocuslens - there are actors who are aware of the camera. This includes Leo. There are actors who forget the camera. This includes Anthony Hopkins. I met Anthony Hopkins and I did the Elephant Man. He will never forget me.
I see Leo & Brad like this: Professional actors putting in a solid day’s work. Nothing wrong with admiring an actor for just doing his job well even if you are constantly reminded that it’s Brad & Leo.
