Once Upon A Time... In Tarantino's Mind

Rating: 9/10 (18 August 2019)

It took me for awhile thinking how much stars does this film deserve. Believe me or not, it wasn't easy at all, for me. This is the most difficult dilemma I have encountered so far. Let's talk a bit.
After the movie ended, I noticed arguments that this movie was not something. In fact, there were a bunch of Tarantino fans who "didn't fly" on it, in Israeli slang. They said and I quote: "90% of the movie was garbage except the ending which was lit." I wouldn't be surprised by that, to be honest. I understand why many people complain about this film. However, to me it just worked.
There is something great about film that worked very well and swept most of the audience (despite the problems I recognized, which I'll be discussing this later). I will nonetheless try to explain what makes it a fun experience alongside its drawbacks.
THIS REVIEW CONTAINS LITTLE SPOILERS !
Let's start with the name of the film in Hebrew (surprise, I'm from Israel ðŸ‡®ðŸ‡±) not "There were times in Hollywood", but "Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood", which is a fairly-tale film and not nostalgic in itself. I don't think it will be surprising to Tarantino fans, but it still needs to be emphasized that this is Tarantino's most understated and at the same time relaxed film since the wonderful Jackie Brown, as far as Tarantino is capable of restraint, that allows the viewers to soak in the setting the film is in.
The story sets in Hollywood 1969, where a TV star, Rick Dalton (Leo), who his stage of transition to cinema was unsuccessful and he is in the crisis of his career. Throughout the film, his stunt accompanies, Cliff Booth (Pitt), who in this case is the best friend to make all his arrangements. Rick lives in a house close to one of Hollywood's hottest and famous couples - director Roman Polanski (Zawierucha) and his wife, actress Sharon Tate (Robbie). Rick belongs to Hollywood's past, and dreams of starring in Plonsky's films.
It appears Tarantino have arrived with love and compassion for this film. He loves his characters, he loves the atmosphere of Hollywood in 1969 (during his adolescence). In fact, Tarantino created a love letter to Hollywood at a time when he was growing up and the result was that he was able to drag the audience into Tarantino's personal and exciting experience of his. In the end, the story that he tells is made up of a combination of storytellings that he has told to these days, and the conclusion is that he created something new and different, that feels like he made his new film, but more innovative and upgraded.
From this it can be said that most viewers expect as much violence as in his previous films. guess what? It won't happen this time. It seems that Tarantino overcame the violence between whoever uses violence in the work also carries responsibility for how the audience responds. Does it make the movie better than its other films because of the violence? I have no clue.
The film puts us in the main character, Rick Dalton. He fails to fit into the 1960s cinema, he would love for his past to return but he knows it will never happen. Just as Tarantino used to cast past stars in his films, so now Rick is cast as a guest character in series and spaghetti westerns, in this case. And as it didn't change the life of those who cast in Tarantino's films, so it doesn't really change their life (and Rick's in that case, too). Take an example of Michael Madsen who used to play lots of Tarantino's films in the past when he was famous, during this time he is less acting and so you can see his cameo character in this film which was of no use to the content.
Leo and Brad doing such a good and hilarious performances, where they both represent doubles of each other in real life, though Rick Dalton is angry and frustrated due of his career fallings (and hippies) while his best bud Cliff Booth is perfectly happy to be his bud's handyman. Leo gives a great acting when he plays a bad cowboy in western spaghetti series and doesn't recall enough lines for his role. There is a tremendous scene between Leo/Rick and little girl playing alongside him, where he reads his "Easy Breezy" book and understands things about himself. It's a very bare scene and he is just wonderful in it. Brad's performance is perfect where he represents the power of stunt-double in cinema industry. Cliff Booth has a dark past and a likeness to a violent Tarantino character - he is also a charmer. There is a great long sequence that begins with a ride for a young girl and ends up on a farm where he once worked as a movie stuntman, and nowadays serves as the "Manson family" which they pose a threat to him, and he is simply excellent at it.
Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate gives a small performance, and yet an important one. There is a marvelous sequence where she reached to the theater to watch a new film where she stars in it (it appeared in official trailer, too). She isn't famous enough to get recognized, but it obvious she's on her way there. She enters the hall to watch the film starring her and there she sticks to the audience's delight. Therefore, her role is a symbol because she symbolizes the future and her hope, she is beautiful in purity and kindness.
Pacino (as Mr. Schwarz) had a small role, and almost didn't contribute to the content. But, at least I'm glad he was involved in it.
This film filled with Easter eggs, references, cameos, and all other manner like Tarantino does it in his every picture, which I won't spoil anything (except I gave a cameo by Michael Maddsen as an example).
Now the part where I complain about multiple differences from other Tarantino's previous pictures. I felt the dialogues were the cluttered case in the movie and that is why the film became so different from all of Tarantino's films. Want to see I'm right? Take an example of a scene from Pulp Fiction where Vincent and Jules discuss about Royal with cheese or the scene where a gang of gangsters discuss the importance of tips from Reservoir Dogs or Warren's investigation scene from The Hateful Eight and so on... At the click of a finger, you already understand the problematicness of this movie. How and why does he do it? I don't know.
One of the other difficulties with the film that I actually overcame is his pace. I understand that a multitude of old classics scenes that are all filmed at 35mm are of no use to the content and thus create a boring atmosphere of the film, unlike me that I enjoyed and it enhanced my viewing experience. It's also a pretty good way to recreate the classics alongside the use of movie fiction content for the first time on the big screen. As the film progresses, the pace becomes tighter and that leads us toward the climax.
One of the highlights of the film was the ending, and it's connected to the murders that took place in the US in the 1960s led by Charles Manson, and the famous murder of the Manson Family was the murder of Sharon Tate when she was pregnant that shocked the country. Manson himself did not attend these events, but he became one of the notorious people. I have to admit, Tarantino tricked me and I didn't know the ending was based on these events on my first viewing. Because we know the murder is coming, the tension begins to build long before anything happens. The director's use of his prior knowledge before the twist is impressive. He puts clues before the climax that no one would ever surpass. From this it can be concluded that all the clues were there all along. After all, this is "Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood", and you'll understand why.
Overall, this is not his most exemplary film, but still a fascinating film by a wonderful director and sometimes a little cocky and sultry. It is a film that hardly allows for serious and deep discussion (except for the end, of course) and almost doesn't leave any material for thought to the viewer after the film. And yet, it allows the viewer to enjoy and transport him back to a crafted version of 60's Los Angeles.
Score: (8.6/10)