Nice ideas, pretentious execution. Tarantino in a nutshell

Rating: 4/10 (7 August 2019)

I was honestly expecting this movie to be worse. Seeing this film was a reminder to myself that even if I think Tarantino films are typically disappointing, I feel they are disappointed because I see a lot of good stuff and potential in much of the content. I just get annoyed at certain decisions regarding the execution.
I've seen less than half of his films. But I've seen and heard enough to where I feel the ideas are generally good and many of the components are successful. Once upon a time... in Hollywood was no exception.
I love the idea of tweaking history and telling an old known story in a new way or creating a new story in an old way. I also like scenes which have a lot of dialogue and I like non-linear storylines or editing that makes one question if the story is or isn't being shown in a linear manner. I also don't take issue with seeing violence or dark and mature content within a movie.
This issue I have is that the Tarantino films I've seen seem too interested in having these sorts of components for the sake of them being part of Tarantino's brand. At times it seems the integrity and intrigue of the story takes a backseat to the style. Rather than the style supporting the story for the sake of the story being told in the best way possible.
Certain scenes seem to drag on and on. I don't care if a scene or sequence of dialogue takes up a lot of time. Some of my favorite movies have these attributes. I'm not suggesting his films ought to conform to rules or norms about runtime or pace of sequences. I take issue with many Tarantino scenes seeming and feeling like they take a long time to get close to nowhere. Especially when other parts of the story go by at a standard or even quick pace.
For instance the scene where Brad Pitt's character goes to see his old work colleague at the Manson hippie commune went sooooooo slowly. Some people certainly appreciated it. And It would have been awful to not build the tension. But I felt the attempt of tension building was so excessive that I was eventually felt annoyed rather than concerned. This isn't the first Tarantino film to make me feel this way.
I was also annoyed during the climactic fight sequence the way one of the characters died by flamethrower, while in a pool. The flamethrower itself as the weapon was awesome and well established within the story. But putting the character in the pool was stupid. How hard is it to avoid being burned to death when you're already in a freakin pool? I don't care what fighting trauma you have from shortly before. It's natural reflexes to fall down or crouch to avoid a blaze of fire shooting at you. Even if you couldn't see the flames because you're covered in blood, you could feel them and sense that you're in a pool.
It would have been an easy story fix for Leo's character to not have a pool. He could have been on a lounge chair outside instead. Or just had a pool somewhere where it wouldn't feature in the climactic battle with a flamethrower.
I'm sure some Tarantino fans will object to all of this and find a way to try to explain the actual "genius of it all". They have every right to delude themself. But it's not going to work on me.
No artist one respects should be held to seemingly no potential negative standard as long as their work has their original off-beat "brand". A brand isn't a synonym for fine-art. And if it you repeat your brand over and over, it's no longer original.