Tarantino's Hollywood, or the Once Upon a Time... Hollywood

Rating: 8/10 (3 June 2020)

Quentin Tarantino is one if not the most visionary director. She loves Hollywood and her older movies. He also makes references to them in his own works, be it the Kung fu films he cites in the Kill Bill films, inspired by Fellini's 8 1/2 film in the Dance Scene. It spins exciting or just thought-provoking lyrics into the mouths of its actors, which everyone then quotes without context. He pushes action scenes in front of us where he spares no blood and brutality. He selects his actors, but he still has favorites like old Samuel L. Jackson, Harvey Keitel, Steve Buscemi, Uma Turman, Tim Roth or just Michael Madsen. Not even working with today's big guns like Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Eli Roth, or just Leonardo DiCaprio, Margot Robbie, Brad Pitt.
Tarantino loves to fetch a mystique for his films, such as what's in the bag that the two thugs keep, or whether Cliff Booth killed his wife or not.
This is where we get to the Once Upon a ... Hollywood. The film, which takes place in the late 60s, is the era when Quentin fell in love with cinema, for that was when he was a child. There's everything that mattered then, western (like in a movie, like a series, actors and directors like Steve McQueen or Roman Polanski, and the actor's wife Sharon Tate. Related to that is a sad and horrible concept, the Manson murders). .
According to the story, a downtrodden actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), who plays only the main villains of the series, is just a neighbor of the Polanski, we can follow his everyday life with his stuntman Cliff Both (Brad Pitt), that's pretty much the story, of course. Manson family, how it would get into the picture would already be spoiler, so I'll just touch on their role in the film. Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate plays Tate with the simple but innocent, clownish charm, almost lubricating the role. After watching the movie, I said DiCaprio and Pitt would be there at the Oscars. Their pair is best put together. Brad Pitt's portrayal is restrained yet expressive. And Dicaprio plays with as much intensity, hysteria as a child whose toy has been taken away.
It may also be surprising that the series did not count as a high-volume format here as it does today. Today, the actors are killing for a good series role, at the time the series was considered a career cemetery.
The story of the film is not very voluminous, simple, but still easy to follow. The lyrics aren't as percussive as they used to be. Maybe there is only one monologue or scene, and that too can be linked to Dicaprio. That may be the only negative for me. The fact is that cinematography here (Robert Richardson) is what has a lot, more weight in the film than ever before. Because it mainly tells about street scenes, the backstage of a shoot, the screening of a film, how the people of that time lived their lives. There are few settings that are always there at Tarantino, but there are a couple. Such is the pointing of the legs. Let's not expect anything else from the foot fetish Tarantino. Not to mention the famous rear seat setup.
The music was also well sorted, here's everything, from Simon and Garfunkel to Mrs. Robinson, from Deep Purple to Kentucky Woman, the list would still be long, with a total of 22 tracks on the soundtracklist. It's good music, though it doesn't match the opening music of the Tarpaulin Novel with Misourlo or Kill Bill vol. For his 1st closing chord for The lonely Sheperd
I now turn to the questionable and or more important parts of the film. First to the Bruce Lee case. When the film came out, the film caused immense astonishment to Shanonn Lee, the daughter of Bruce Lee. For he said that the scene in which his father was portrayed desecrated his person, that his father did not behave in that way. My view of this is that, on the one hand, Tarantino tended to knit together only the characteristics of the characters played by Lee and the figure emerged from it. On the other hand, there can be no complaint about the portrayal of actor Leet Mike Moh, no matter how strangely his character has been created.
The other one I want to deal with is the Manson sect. Tarantino only displays a scene to the extent of Charles Manson, not much to deal with. It deals all the more with his followers, who are generally young girls in their 20s and 30s, and a few guys. They are set up for simple hippies compared to being a serial killer sect. Although at the end of the film, they're pushing a bloodbath worthy of a Tarantino movie, not in any way. Their motivation, exceptional, is to kill as they saw it on television as an anno child. This is entirely true of Tarantino. It turns reality on its own. I would not say more about this part.
Overall, it's an enjoyable comedy drama that, when viewed as a Tarantino film, isn't his best work, but it's not as immersive as the Grinhouse. Those who expect fast-paced dialogues, nerve-wracking action scenes one by one may be disappointed. In any case, I look forward to the master with excitement,