The latest in a long, long line of Tarnatino clunkers. Baffling - why was it made?

Rating: 1/10 (6 January 2020)

First of all a fact: IMDb reports that Tarantino's latest (as of January 6, 2020, when I am writing this review) cost an estimated $90 million and recouped almost half that in its opening US weekend ($41 million). Released six months ago, it has already grossed $141 million in the US and Â£372.5 million worldwide. There will be more moolah to come, and even more once it is released on video. So there's just one reason why Tinseltown's moneymen will gladly finance any old hooey that Tarantino wants to produce: the returns are fabulous, and we all know that at the end of the day we must ignore all the bull about 'an important new film', 'artistic integrity' and I don't know what else and just listen to the sound of the only thing that counts, continual ringing of the till.
I liked Tarantino's first 'breakthrough' film, Reservoir Dogs, and I liked Pulp Fiction. Both were in their own way originals. Jackie Brown was also quite good, though I suspect that was more down to Elmore Leonard's story than Tarantino's filmmaking. But since then? Dear soul, what is going on? But while he sucks in the readies, Tinseltown doesn't care.
Tinseltown doesn't care in the slightest that Tarantino cannot for the life of himself, or rather seems to have forgotten how to, pace a film. He can write the occasional good line, but a good line here and there can't and doesn't excuse some of the mish-mash dreck he has been coming out with for quite a few years.
Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained, The Hateful Eight and now this, Once Upon A Time In Hollywood are simply not very good at all. Certainly far worse films have been made and will be made, but far better films have been made, too. But not by Tarantino. But - I repeat - no one in Hollywood is going to argue with the simple fact with which I began this review: he makes very, very good money for folk who seem to be interested in little else.
What, specifically, to make of Once Upon A Time In Hollywood? It is certainly well-made, though that might be more to the credit of Tarantino's producers, but many TV commercials are superbly produced. And everything else about is confusing to pointless to incomprehensible. Essentially the obvious question is: just why did Tarantino bother? Why?
When it was released media reviews spoke (in that arch way reviewers have when confronted by yet another clunker by a former wunderkind and they haven't quite got the stomach to say so) of 'Tarantino's love letter to Hollywood', that 'Tarantino pays tribute to filmmaking' and more along those lines. Well, Quentin darling, every thought of making a documentary instead? Why waste your time - and not least our time - with this kind of self-indulgent bull?
What is it about? By my reckoning - the 'action' takes up the final 30 minutes of a very long film - something like nine-tenths of the film is redundant, utterly superfluous, pointless: so why include them.
Why rewrite the whole Manson family murder tragedy? What was the point? Was there a point? Tarantino must have had something in mind because it certainly isn't entertaining.
There are two saving graces to this film: Brad Pitt and Leonardo Di Caprio. Both can add polish to the biggest turd. As for the other actors, well, they just had nothing at all to do. Zilch.
So there you have it, another horrible, well-made, pointless clunker from Tarantino. But there will be more, don't worry, as many as he can make will he carries on turning dross into dollars.