Mr. Tarantino, what have you done?

Rating: 8/10 (20 August 2019)

Simply by reading the title of the review, one might think that I am disappointed or underwhelmed by the movie. Those readers could not be more wrong. The fact is that I am more than satisfied by what I saw, but am in a state of complete shock by not fully understanding what it is that I actually saw last night.
The "Tarantino love letter to L.A." is not a bad movie by any means (not that there is a bad Tarantino movie), nor is it a masterpiece, but every once in a while Tarantino gives us a movie like this, with a concept we did not expect (dare I say understand) and a "story" that is completely out of this world. Once upon a time... in Hollywood is a movie just like that.
The acting. There is something about Tarantino that drives his actors to perform at their absolute best. DiCaprio (who I usually cannot stand with his trademark over the top performances) is an inch away from grandeur in this movie. His persona as Rick Dalton, his fragile personality as an actor and his almost perfect roles in the movie as well as the transition from one to the other is simply superb. Among others, he had the most complex and difficult role to pull off (with more than a dozen roles to play with not much screen time for all of them). His internal and external monologues and struggle to become something more that just a TV cowboy actor is (first) written beautifully and (second) executed in a splendid fashion. The contrast between his life and the roles he plays is a spectacular thing to witness, and I would enjoy to see it again (many, many times). He broke from his (Scorsese) typecast roles and actually showed the world that he can be a character actor (and a great one at that).
Pitt was a complete contrast to DiCaprio. His character was tough, rugged, strong, down to earth, good looking (it is Brad Pitt after all) etc. By contrast to what his character was to be, his execution is more that just muscle-for-hire type of role. He understood that his role was to support DiCaprio's (just like their characters) and he executed it perfectly. The few single segments (especially the Ranch scene) he had, he literally stole every single second without breaking a sweat. The intriguing thing is that he did not, once in a 160 min movie, raise the tone of his voice or change the pace of walk (even in the most nerve-wrecking moments). He showed style and class in a role that was everything but style and class. His brute force is shown very briefly during the movie but is effective enough to make the audience understand with what kind of brawler they are dealing with (even if most of the characters in the movie didn't).
Robbie has established herself as an AAA actress long ago. She is well suited for action, comedy, drama, comic book adaptations etc. Here, she proved that she is also capable of pulling of a tragic character with very, very little screen time. Her presence in the movie was more of a viewing experience (with drastically sharp and almost uncomfortable close-ups) and "eye-candy" than a multi-layered character (like DiCaprio or Pitt). But, contrary to belief, that was the point of her role. She was to be viewed as a happy, beautiful, full of life and joy character, a prototype of the up-and-coming star in that time. The fact that we all know what happened to her is what makes her such an in-corrupted character that we simply love seeing. Their triangle (the psychology of DiCaprio, the strength of Pit and the looks of Robbie) is what makes a good actor - then and now. Lose one of those and you have one of the three characters' fates on your hands. Tarantino knows this, and that is exactly what he wanted to show us. That is his formula for driving actors to perform beyond their possibilities with such ease.
The story. As Once upon a time in... Hollywood is a character movie revolving around the three characters (and a whole bunch of other ensemble cast brilliance cameos) the story simply fades away. To put it quite truthfully, there is no story. This is a period piece, done to perfection in almost every segment, especially the atmosphere and surroundings. The run-time is not a real issue because it is not felt in any way as the "story" always changes and moves in ways that you don't see coming so it's never really boring. Herein I will use a strange construction that - it entertained me just like a Tarantino movie should, but the movie itself is not entertaining. It requires the viewer to think and carefully watch for every nook and cranny he put in there so that you can put the pieces together and understand what he actually tried to tell you. This will prove to be a chore for most moviegoers and most of them will not give this movie a second chance, which is a shame, because only upon second viewing will this movie really explode as the audience will know on what to put their focus on. It is brilliant, but it is not for everyone (this is not the MCU).
The directing. There is a reason Tarantino is such a great director. He understands every set-piece, every character, every song ect. and what they represent and he know exactly how to show it to the audience. He does have an annoying trait as of late - the length. If this movie was 20-30 min shorter, the pace would be a bit more fluent and the characters would even out in their screen-time. But, as it is a trait, one cannot hold it against him too much.
The atmosphere. This is what this movie is actually about. Feeling the atmosphere and life and style of the last days of 1969. The production value is through the roof, Tarantino knows it, and uses it to extreme lengths. He effectively immersed the audience in that time and gave them a ride they didn't expect (some of whom may have desired a different ride). But the feel of the movie and the suspense that is rising in the viewer (without a real explanation why that is happening) is superbly written, edited and directed.
The ending. The signature Tarantino style aesteticized violence comes to full effect here, and with good reason. The tension that was building up throughout the movie actually explodes in the end. It is extremely meta and with more symbolism that the entire movie altogether, but is just a joy to watch (as this is actually Tarantino's way of saying - this is what I would do to those who did what they did back then). The final shot leaves the viewer wondering if it actually takes place in real time or if it is a surreal setting or is it something else. All in all, the ending will infuriate some, but that was not really the point. Look deeper into the meaning of the ending and you will see what it actually stands for.
All in all Once upon a time in... Hollywood is not a masterpiece upon superficial viewing. It is not the best that Tarantino has ever made, but is far, far from the worst. It is a great movie with all the right buttons pushed except for that last one - the one where you have to think about what you saw instead of letting him show you everything. That button he intended for the audience to push for themselves. Only then will this be a masterpiece. If that button is not pushed, it's just a great movie to enjoy (over and over again). So, upon second viewing, try to push that button, it's worth it. Trust me.