Quentin Tarantino is an American treasure. With Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, he has finally made a film that is an ode to the city that made him. The less you know about it walking in the better. I won’t give away anything you don’t already know, but in case you were wondering, this is a wild ride worthy of another famous blonde who went down the rabbit hole.
Into the drug-infused culture of American life of 1969, through the neon-lit streets of Hollywood, up the winding roads of the Hollywood Hills, and into the unsuspecting mountain enclaves of Chatsworth, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood unfolds. Nixon had just barely won the presidency and had just begun a secret bombing of Cambodia that would not stay secret for long. There was chaos in the streets, and there was a zoned out, tuned out hippie culture the curtain was just about to go down on.
This world, as we once knew it, came to a screeching end one hot and sticky August night in Bel Air on Cielo Drive, when four members of the Manson family crept into a house at the top of the dead-end drive where Roman Polanski was living with ingenue actress Sharon Tate. Polanski was away on location. Three friends, including Folger coffee heiress Abigail Folger, were visiting that evening. The Mansons brutally murdered all of them.
It took a while in the wake of the massacre for the truth to come out about who or what could have done something so gruesome. Some even suspected Polanski himself of murdering his own pregnant wife. When the facts came to light, they were too bizarre to believe. It was like nothing anyone could have imagined, though the isolated depravity at the hands of people who looked no different than any other free-love hippies was horrific enough for the whole anti-establishment movement to eventually take a dive.
Meanwhile, there was another story unfolding in Hollywood: the end of an era for a certain breezy style of TV heroes. The 1970s would call for more serious realism. The television landscape would suddenly become darker, as cavalier attitudes were forgotten and America evolved beyond the carefree ’60s under Kennedy and become tangled in the paranoid ’70s under Nixon.
Tarantino’s Los Angeles is a mix of vivid nostalgia, sardonic lore, and his own unique brand of fandom that we’ve seen pulsing through his work since his career began. We’ve come to know and love the world of Tarantino pop culture — of Kung Fu movies and Blaxploitation flicks, of film nerds who worked in video stores, dreaming of girls who looked like Patricia Arquette, Uma Thurman, and Pam Grier who might cross their path for a spontaneous adventure. Girls who liked to watch rowdy, risqué movies just as much as the guys, when everyone was up for anything.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood feels like Tarantino’s most accomplished film because it is easily his most personal. While all his movies reflect tangents of his own genre obsessions, only in this film do we get a glimpse into Tarantino himself: his own vulnerability, his memories of who he once was, his dreams of what he wanted to be, and the maps that led him to the artist he has become.
It is a film about friendship, a film about mercurial television stardom, a film about a world that was vibrantly alive right up until the instant its candles were snuffed out. It’s a film about the Manson family’s influence on the collective psyche of California, and how the morbid tale and the characters who populate it have themselves been knitted into the funky macramé fabric of that culture, because how could they not be? How can you talk about Warren Beatty and Hollywood parties and eventually not take the winding road to Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate? And how can you get there and not face the implications of that horrible night when the unimaginable became a grim reality that we’re all stuck with?
The climax of Sharon Tate’s life was not destined to be the birth of Polanski’s baby on schedule. No, that unborn joy would be stabbed before it drew its first breath, along with his gorgeously captivating mother. Slaughtered at the hands of one Susan Atkins — aka “Sexy Sadie” — who heard Tate’s last words as she pleaded for her life before Atkins stabbed her again and again and again, then wrote “Pig” on the door in hers in her baby’s blood. Yes, wild-eyed Sadie, along with Patricia Krenwinkel and Linda Kasabian had been driven by Tex Watson to Cielo Drive at Charlie Manson’s command, given orders to commit a murder as gruesome as possible, to be blamed on unknown black invaders, as nothing but a ploy for Manson to start a race war.
As it transpired, Manson scheme was concocted as revenge against a music exec, Terry Melcher, who had turned him down for a record deal. The house in the hills of Bel Air was the target because they thought Melcher lived there, but he was long gone and new tenants had moved in. But because of Manson’s pathetic ego, his mediocre talent, and his acid-fueled insanity, Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, and Abigail Folger would become the first victims of the Manson family on August 9, 1969. The following night, the same gang, along with Manson himself, murdered Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in equally brutal fashion. The cloistered Hollywood community freaked out. Los Angeles freaked out. America freaked out. Nothing would ever be the same after that.
What remains haunting is how random the murder was, how arbitrary. Why that house? Because of a dumb blunder. Why those victims? Because they just happened to be home. The crimes were the very definition of senseless, committed for no purpose that could be measured by any sane person — just the mayhem of mindless zombies who belonged to a cult whose hypnotic leader told them to go do it.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes full advantage of the random nature of the crimes committed by the Manson family. But to explain exactly how and why would be to reveal entirely too much. The film can be seen as the third in a trilogy by Tarantino that deals with monumental crimes against humanity that Tarantino loops away from reality and veers into wishful thinking, to deliver the satisfaction of revenge that history failed to achieve.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt are wonderful in their roles as a fading star and his stunt man who have formed a deep friendship over the years. Each of their stories is told with Tarantino’s trademark zest and balls-out brio. This time around, we don’t get as much of the twisted antic monologues he’s known for: instead, he allows the characters to settle into themselves, with much of Pitt’s story playing out without much dialogue at all. Both his and DiCaprio’s stories are deeply rooted in the emotional core of two raucous, hot-blooded men who know their careers are cooling off and about to fade out.
Margot Robbie plays the Sharon Tate of our dreams as we look back on a life that almost was. A beauty whose face made men literally stumble in the streets, she may not be given much to say, but the intimate scenes we share with her in her finals days speak eloquently of a promising life cut short. Tarantino has brought her back to life without taking away anything that belonged to her by pretending he knew more about her than he possibly could. No one but her closest friends could really knew much about her. And now she is forever linked with the nightmare of Manson and the lingering legacy of Roman Polanski.
With glorious tracking shots (shot on real film stock) and breathtaking fast-moving drives down canyon roads, this is a film that makes your mouth water for how close it is to living that fleeting life as it once existed. It’s not a movie that needs visual effects, because it derives its effectiveness from being grounded in L.A.’s inimitable light and landscape. It’s a movie that showcases a filmmaker at the absolute top of his game, in complete command, with perfect melding of story and image, character and meaning. It walks a fine line between absurdist comedy and disturbing tragedy, and it 100% sticks its stunning landing.
It’s a movie whose details are best kept under wraps until everyone has a chance to see it. But know this: you’re not likely to encounter a more entertaining film this year. Throughout his career, Tarantino has given Americans a whole world that is his and his alone. That world is made up of collectible treasures, carefully curated and elegantly displayed. He’s picked them up from every corner of this city, from every film or television show he’s ever watched — a whole lifetime of observations culled by a curious mind and refined with a talented eye, by a filmmaker who has only ever wanted to make movies that might match the best of cinema he ever loved and discovered. With Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Tarantino has made his most accomplished film to date, and created what will easily go down as one of the best films of the year.
I’m old enough to remember “Lancer” and “The FBI” and those re-created scenes starring Leo were like a gift from my childhood…This movie is tremendous….
I loved the movie and Brad Pitt’s performance specifically. I also enjoyed Robbie and thought the real-life characters gave an added dimension and counterpoint to the main Cliff/Rick storyline. I would like to see it again. The most impressive thing about the movie is that a viewer could watch it once for entertainment, then go back to it multiple times to fully appreciate and analyze the movie posters and locations. QT’s love of cinema and sense of time and place were evident. I felt transported to another world like I did after watching LLL.
It would be great if the editors of Awards Daily would consider having a spoilers article and/or thread for this because it is way harder to talk about this movie and not give things away. 🙂
Ditto re: having a spoilers thread! I have a lot i would love to say about this movie .., both good and not so good
I find it almost impossible to talk in any depth about this movie without it because the ending is a main point of discussion and one that I do not want to have spoiled for others.
I liked it a lot and I don’t see how brad Pitt doesn’t get nominated let alone win an Oscar. It’s an effortless movie star performance. One of his best.
A few more thoughts…
– Pitt is the frontrunner for supporting actor and it will take a LOT to unseat him in my opinion
– Leo is fantastic and I don’t see how he misses the best actor lineup
– Robbie will NOT be nominated. I just don’t think she’s in it enough. If she IS nominated, this movie is winning best picture.
– Several times throughout the movie while watching Pitt I thought ‘we are seeing the new Robert Redford…’. He’s just continued to do great work, still charming as all get out, and sexy as hell. Women want to be with him and men want to be him or be his best friend.
– I wish there was an award for animals in movies. The dog was amazing.
– Andie Macdowell’s daughter is gonna be a big star I think
This film has about as much chance of winning BP as Tom Steyer has of winning president.
https://media2.giphy.com/media/RUcHXDGWCC8wM/giphy.gif
You’re gonna be such a joy to read over the next six months when this movie won’t go away in awards chatter. Everyone best buckle up! Chase is on a mission!
You mean like Roma, or The Social Network, or Boyhood, or other critic’s darlings that ate up tons of ink but when it all shook down none of them mattered.
You’re flipping out and being dramatic over the fact that I said if…IF Robbie gets a nomination I think that means there is a LOT of backers because it just isn’t a big role. If you took a breath and read my post before having a tantrum I said SHE WILL NOT BE NOMINATED. I nowhere said this is winning best picture. I used a hypothetical on a very small role getting a nomination predicting it would win. Now, breathe.
“If she IS nominated, this movie is winning best picture. ” Kellyanne, is this you? Even if she got nominated, it would never win. Just like everyone thought Roma had it in the bag with not one, but 2, left field acting nominations, it did not matter.
Honey, please read before you angry post. I said FROM THE GET GO that IF she is nominated I think it will win best picture…but right before that I said she will NOT be nominated. Ergo because I DO NOT THINK SHE WILL BE NOMINATED, I am not predicting it will win best picture. But if she WAS I think it shows there is a lot of love behind it that would lead to a win. You are seriously upset over this and that is…pathetic. You hate a movie. Cool. Next.
Not in the least. You have to care to hate. I expelled this from my system an hour after I saw it. I’m more excited about seeing Downton Abbey and Ford Vs. Ferrari , you know, real movies made by real adults 🙂
Oh you care. You don’t spew all that in one post with no paragraph breaks if you don’t care. You expelled it, that’s for sure. But you care. Otherwise you wouldn’t have posted.
Yes those movies look good. Goodnight.
My post was simply to counterbalance the pagan idolatry being shown to this film. Everyone go see The Farewell or Wild Rose if they’re playing in your town. You will be richly rewarded in spirit.
I mean those films all ended up mattering to be fair, they all got a ton of Oscar nominations and they all won at least one majorish Oscar… Just because a film doesn’t ultimately win best picture that doesn’t mean that film didn’t matter in the awards race… I do personally see OUATIH (what is the acronym we are going for btw people, is that it or are we shortening it in some way) as being very much like those films, it’ll get heaps of nominations, win at least something big but not win bp. That would be in the realm of mattering in the awards race.
The only chance it has to win something would be Pitt for supporting actor, and that’s only in a weak field. It would be a career achievement award
You’re too invested in putting this down. It annoys me. I feel a keen sense of deja vu. To quote the social philosopher Taylor Swift, “Are you ok?… You need to calm down.”
Deja vu to what? And T-Swizzle rules! (but I still won’t see Cats)
🙂 Having loved 1989, I bought Reputation when it came out and didn’t really like it the first few times I listened to it. However, seven months later I began listening to it non-stop and really like her. I probably won’t see Cats until it comes out on video but will buy “Lover” even though it may be weak.
More importantly, though, the”deja vu” in my previous post refers to the sinking feeling I get when Oscar races start and movies get torn apart. I don’t like that—-it has spoiled many a season for me. And if it’s this bad early on when there aren’t many competitors, I can only imagine how it will be once the stans have skin in the game.
There are so few movies that I feel excited about this year. Irishman, Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, maybe Little Women because of Ronan…
Reputation is terrific. I’m glad you stuck with it. Critics just don’t like her because she doesn’t look like PJ Harvey. And 7 months in, it has been a TERRIBLE year. That’s why it’s hilarious to see any Oscar talk surrounding Hollywood. Every year is like this so when the first film allegedly of “quality” comes out there’s an overreaction. Remember when Dunkirk had everything locked up?
Yes, it’s one of the rare records where I listen to almost every song. I especially like the album cuts “Dancing with Our Hands Tied,” “This is Why We Don’t Have Nice Things,” “Don’t Blame Me,” and one or two others. I am showing my age with my references to “records” and “album cuts,” lol, but I am only 43. I will listen to Lover and hopefully like it just as much, though the first songs are not quite as good. I prefer Me to the more (in my view) contrived “You Need to Calm Down.”
Every year, I get invested in the Oscar race, and the movies I love never win. When A Star is Born was riding high in the early phase of the Oscar race, I told a friend that I doubted it would win because I liked it too much, and sure enough, it didn’t. Like Sasha used to have on this site, “the trick is not caring.” But I do.
I agree that there hasn’t been much this year. I’ve gone to three movies. I will probably have seen 10-12 by the end of the year, though it’s more sparse.
I forgot, Star Is Born was another one that everyone said had it locked because of the dearth of other quality films.
Even prettier than her mom.
After tonight I will never stop going back to the movies to see Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood, for the rest of the year, for the rest of time.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/3otPop24QAAS4qmQCc/giphy.gif
I’m gonna need to tweet this out for people who tweet to see it, okay?
This will be a love it or hate it movie. As we have seen in some posts in this thread already. I personally loved it. Went with boyfriend who has never liked a Tarantino movie much and I was a bit surprised when it was over to hear him say he loved it and it was by far his favorite QT movie.
With the great Sally Menke gone, and Harvey Weinstein in the dock, there is no one to keep Tarantino from his worst impulses, all of which are on display in this film. He’s reached 56 freakin’ years old and has absolutely nothing to say except “Hey, wanna see my neat cinephilia collection?” He’s totally abandoned all pretense of creating a coherent narrative, choosing instead to wallow in facade. Beyond self-indulgent, this masturbatory exercise has exposed many critics to be the fawning fools we’ve all known them to be. Just because you can expertly recreate a period (with $94 million so could Ed Wood) and mark off a checklist of 60s pop culture references, that does no create a story. And for this column not to address the anemic way it treated the Sharon Tate character, reducing her to basically someone who danced in off a Terence Malick film, is disgraceful. The film exploits her memory, pure and simple. Sadly, at this point in time QT’s head has disappeared so far up his culo, Vasco Da Gama couldn’t even find it.
Wow. To each their own. I loved it. Absolutely loved it.
i agree totally with you well sa[d thius movie is self indulgent hollywood at its worst
Can’t wait for this film.
By the by, a lot of very well meaning people are being played by Tarantino over this “ten films, then I quit” thing. Does any rational person really think that the guy who said he wanted to beat Billy Wilder’s script Oscar tally is going to try and scale that mountain with a Star Trek film?
A fun exercise would be to find what films wouldn’t be made if the director had quit at 10. For instance
If Kurosawa had quit at ten films, then he wouldn’t have made Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, Yojimbo, and Ran.
If Scorcese had quit at ten he wouldn’t have made Goodfellas and Departed
If Spielberg had quit at ten, no Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan
Hitchcock might be the most noteworthy in this exercise. Basically…every single movie most people have heard of or seen would have never been made. But for the sake of argument, say his ‘first’ movie was Rebecca. That would mean the following classics were never made:
Rope
Strangers on a Train
North By Northwest
Psycho
Rear Window
The Birds
Vertigo
Dial M for Murder
Tarantino can only dream of making a film as lean and potent as Psycho. Apart from the Simon Oakland coda, every counterintuitive move Hitch made on that film succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.
Legit question here. I know that Q showed Tate’s sister the script and there is talk that a third party showed it to Polanski, but were the families of the other three victims given the same courtesy? I fully get that he was going to make the film anyway the way he wanted, but I am still uncomfortable about the corpses of these other three people (five if you count the Lobiancos) being trotted out for a meta film about the end of 60’s grindhouse cinema.
Haven’t read about those cases, but I did read that the Bruce Lee family wasn’t consulted. I was surprised that QT would treat him so dismissively here. I don’t think the Lees will be happy.
Sasha do you know of QT changing the ending since Cannes? I saw it last night and was reading the plot summary on Wikipedia and everything was accurate until the ending.
The plot summary on Wikipedia has always been incorrect.
I have a problem with the film for the same reason I had with Inglourious B’s. It’s hard to accept fiction in place of reality when doing –at least in part– a reality event.. Now will I go to the film, of course!
I look forward to it. But the script can’t achieve greatness even if the film-making can.
Note: even though i haven’t seen or heard about the script, I figured it out. While knowing nothing about the exact details, we’ll see who eliminated who and if the film can or can’t become a classic based on that –ending– alone?
I gave up on QT with the DJango movie. I just didn’t get it. He lost me as a fan.
Seeing Thursday. Sharon is spared Debra Tate told me that in April
Thanks for that. Are you kidding me? Why in the hell would you put that out here.
Seeing it Thursday! Can’t wait!
Great review!
Sasha can’t wait to see this . I love most of Tarantino ‘ s work except for Hateful Eight Off topic a bit . Isn’t it about time Awards Daily did a Ten Best list of the decade . So far I have in no particular order Tree of Life , The Immigrant , Phantom Thread , Mad Max : Fury Road , Blade Runner 2049 and Only Lovers Left Alive .
We usually wait for a decade to be over before doing a list of the best films of the decade, which leaves us almost a year and a half to make up our minds, since the current decade started in 2011 and ends in 2020, but I already know mine anyway:
1. Call Me By Your Name
2. Call Me By Your Name
3. Call Me By Your Name
4. Call Me By Your Name
5. Call Me By Your Name
6. Call Me By Your Name
7. Call Me By Your Name
8. Call Me By Your Name
9. Call Me By Your Name
10. Call Me By Your Name
Also-rans: Moonrise Kingdom, The Handmaiden, First Man, The Great Gatsby, Dunkirk, The Favourite, Blue Jasmine, Frankenweenie, The Artist, Florence Foster Jenkins
More like Call Me By Your Circlejerk.
1. It’s Already Been Forgotten
2. It’s Already Been Forgotten
3. It’s Already Been Forgotten
4. No matter how hard you wish, Chalamet isn’t going to fuck you.
It hasn’t been forgotten, it’s a very good film, but mein Gott some people don’t know when to shut the fuck up about it.
OMG I love this so much
“We usually wait for a decade to be over before doing a list of the best films of the decade”
okay, but we usually don’t wonder if everything everywhere will be over before the decade is over.
your list is juicy
I don’t have an order yet so have alphabetical 12
A Silent Voice
Blade Runner 2049
Mad Max Fury Road
Moonlight (best Best Picture this decade easily)
Parasite (you are in for a treat when this comes out, it is uproarious, clever, and endlessly enjoyable)
Tangerine
The Act of Killing
The Favourite
The Handmaiden
The Shape of Water
The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Your Name (my #1, definitely one of my all-time favourites, seen dozens of times)
My Top 10 of the Decade so far:
1. Ida
2. Call me by your name
3. Grand Budapest Hotel
4. The Social Network
5. La vie d´Adèle/Blue is the warmest colour
6. Free Solo
7. Roma
8. The Artist
9. Cold War
10. Phantom Thread
I’m collecting a shortlist at the moment for my eventual list, at the moment it’s 252 films, but the top looks something like this:
1. The Tree of Life (my #2 film of all time)
2. Carol
3. Twin Peaks: The Return
Other favourites:
The Social Network
The Master
Moonrise Kingdom
Holy Motors
The Turin Horse
Goodbye First Love
Inside Llewyn Davis
The Wolf of Wall Street
The Grandmaster
Like Someone in Love
Inherent Vice
The Double
Only Lovers Left Alive
Under the Skin
Mad Max: Fury Road
The Assassin
Eden
Mommy
Moonlight
Silence
The Lobster
O.J.: Made in America
Call Me by Your Name
Phantom Thread
Lady Bird
Faces, Places
Burning
Roma
If Beale Street Could Talk
Shoplifters
Paddington 2
An Elephant Sitting Still
Long Day’s Journey into Night
You never cease to amaze, Ferdinand. Always impressed by your contributions to the site conversations.
Sent from BlueMail
Thank you, Ryan. This site has been for years a particularly special place to me, as a young cinephile who for long really didn’t have anyone to talk about movies with. The site felt and still feels like a place that’s bursting with interesting and passionate opinions while holding the line of feeling like a place where all these opinions and points of view are welcomed and considered worthy