Name: 'once upon a time in hollywood' is the worst tarantino film.
Uploaded: 2020-03-18T22:30:17.000Z
Duration: 15 min 42 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

Past simple

I watched Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood a couple weeks ago, and I just wanted to grant about it.

And for some reason, I have a platform on the Internet to do that.

Once upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in Los Angeles in the 19 sixties, and it follows Rik Dalton, played by Leonardo DiCaprio.

Leonardo DiCaprio, who used to be a big Western star.

He's not as relevant anymore, and he's trying to kind of rebuild his career.

And it's also largely about this bromance between Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, who plays Leo's stunt Man, who is also struggling to find work as Leo's career kind of comes to a close.

The movie also plays around with the Sharon Tate murders and kind of tells like an alternative history of them.

Margot Robbie plays Sharon Tate, and she is next door.

Neighbors with urine are DiCaprio's character, so I guess it'll say so that I don't spoil it for you guys.

My hopes were really high for this movie, and I personally think this is the worst movie Tarantino's ever made.

Which is not to say that it is a bad movie because it's a perfectly fine, like 6.5 out of 10.

But for Tarantino, that's like a zero, and the thing that's confusing to me is that everybody is like, really hyped up about this film and praising it, and critics are loving it.

My main problem with this film is that it lacks tension and conflict that makes the scenes interesting.

Tarantino can be known for his meandering or unconventional movies, and I don't mind a meandering plotline.

But why do mind is the fact that the majority of the scenes in this film didn't have riel driving force behind them.

They either didn't tie together with anything interesting later in the film, so they just felt like they were there for no reason.

Or it was a scene between two characters who didn't have a whole lot of conflict, and we're really trying to get anything out of each other.

They were just like hanging out, chatting like there was one scene where Brad Pitt is on the roof fixing the satellite, which admittedly has a very good shot of Brad Pitt shirtless.

But that wasn't quite enough to justify the whole scene.

He's just like up there chillin fixing the roof.

And then nearby there's Margot Robbie, who's dancing around in her house for no reason.

And that is probably the worst thing that you could ever say about a movie.

Because if you think about like the fucking millions of dollars and hundreds of people's talent who went into every single minute of a film, I don't think there's any excuse to make it a boring one.

If I wanted to watch somebody just hang out and not do anything particularly interesting, I would fucking watch YouTube.

This is my whole job, just making very marginally interesting videos.

After watching the movie, I read a lot of reviews online, and it seems like the general consensus amongst critics was that it was like some bold choice that Tarantino made to make a movie that didn't feel like a movie, and that wasn't actually exciting or had tension in the scenes or a central plot line.

And it was just kind of like a day in the Life Hollywood nostalgia fest, which conveniently is also the exact type of movie that Hollywood executives jerk off to.

And everybody else who doesn't work in Hollywood is like, What is this?

I actually did like that movie a lot more than once upon a time in Hollywood.

Another thing about this movie is it is definitely a film made for people in Hollywood.

I like that in kind of name, glorious bastard style.

Tarantino is taking on this alternate history of a historical event.

But I think in classic Hollywood style, Tarantino has overestimated the relevance of Hollywood to the rest of the world and the regular person's knowledge of these historical Hollywood figures.

There were a lot of inside jokes that even like I went to film school, but I didn't quite understand them because I just didn't know who those characters were.

So maybe it's a more enjoyable film to an older audience or to people who are better researched about these events and these historical figures But part of that is also on Tarantino for making a movie that is kind of hard to access as a regular human.

There was a solid, like 15 minutes in this movie just of people driving around Los Angeles, which I watched this movie like in Maryland with my East Coast friends, and they were so confused why there was so much driving at night in L.

I do kind of understand it like it evokes this certain feeling, and it's kind of lonely but beautiful at the same time.

I personally like those scenes and also just like the technical marvel of having to transform all of these streets and Hollywood into Ye Olde E 1960 streets in Hollywood just so that Brad Pitt could drive by them like that alone is an incredible production feet.

But I think it points to a larger problem in Hollywood in L.

In general, where we very much live in this bubble.

But people don't realize it's a bubble, and we end up getting all these movies little like l a ticks in them, which is nice if you live in L.

Something else that absolutely shocked me about this movie is the fact that Margot Robbie has, like two fucking lines in this whole movie.

She barely talks, and she barely has any interesting scenes.

I honestly was just like offended on Margot Robbie's behalf that somebody dare cast such a talented actress and have her barely say anything, especially cause she was billed as one of the main three actors on the poster.

I was waiting this entire movie for Margot Robbie to have, like a really powerful he acted scene.

But throughout the entire film, it's just the camera following her around doing errands.

She goes and watches her own movie to make sure the audience is laughing at her performance, which does come across really sweet.

But it's a scene that drags on for like, five minutes and again, Margot Robbie is not saying anything.

She's just portraying the same delighted, giggly emotion the entire movie.

There's a scene where she goes to a party, and she just dances for two minutes while another guy at the party tells us about her life.

She's portrayed as in my opinion, this male fantasy of the ditzy, innocent, beautiful girl who doesn't know that she's beautiful, who doesn't know her own intelligence, who really doesn't speak often and is always like Happy and Dancy and happy to be looked at by men.

It just rubs me the wrong way, especially like in Fucking 2019 when everybody knows that we need to give female characters death.

I do understand that it's a bit of a complicated issue, though, because Margot Robbie is portraying Sharon Tate, who was a riel person who died tragically and out of respect for her family and her memory.

I do understand that she has to be portrayed in a certain way.

I read an article this morning where Tarantino is justifying, basically the fact that Margot Robbie has no plot line, and she barely speaks because he wanted to represent just like the regular life that she was tragically robbed of, which I think is a sweet message like, I have no doubt that Sharon Tate, in real life, was incredibly lovely person, but I think that she also had feelings other than I want to dance right now and smile like I'm sure she had these complex human emotions that we all have, and I would have loved to see those on screen.

And I think that really, honestly would have done more justice to Sharon Tate's memory than to create this very flat, very perfect image of her without getting to film theory.

And basically, like male gaze is the way that woman are seem to like exist for men to look at as objects of beauty and not as like actual, complex human beings.

And I felt that particularly in the scene where Sharon Tate was going to the movie theater, and she's like walking around doing her errands.

And it's very clearly angled so that it is this shot of her, but in a mini skirt as she's like prancing around, not knowing that she's being watched.

It feels a little bit voyeuristic and a little bit creepy.

People might think that I'm being overly book right now, but if you're into like film theory, this is stuff that you ultimately have to think about.

She is portrayed in a sexualized and glorified way.

Another thing that nobody is talking about in this movie is how many fucking feet shots were in this film.

For those of you who don't know, it's kind of like widely known that Tarantino has a foot fetish.

There have been a lot of foot shots in his other movies, but he's kind of calmed it down a little bit, and they generally felt like reasonably motivated shots.

But there were two foot shots in this film that felt so sexual and so uncomfortable, and they didn't actually have of reason to be there in the script.

Other than Tarantino wanted to look at these actresses feet.

The 1st 1 was when Margot Robbie goes toe watch her own movie in the theater, and she just takes off her boots and puts her dirty feet up on the sea.

I don't know, maybe it's trying to say that she's like carefree and fun and relaxed in this film.

But the feet were very large on screen, and we all know that it was at least partially motivated by Tarantino's foot fetish.

Margaret quickly is hitchhiking and getting a ride from Brad Pitt, and midway through the conversation, she puts both her feet up on the dash and like rubs them against the windshield, and it's like 15 seconds of her feet, just like rubbing against each other, very large on screen, like literally larger than her face.

You cannot ignore the fact that her bare feet are in the shot.

The sounds were the worst part, too, because they put in this like a squeaking sound effect is like her toes rub against the windshield.

What bothers me about this more than the fact that there are feet like I think it's okay if you have finished, is even after the me to movement in Hollywood.

That Tarantino can still get away with that stuff, like the whole point of the me to movement was pointing out is kind of uncomfortable power dynamic between often male directors and Austin female actresses.

Even though this foot thing is not like straight up sexual assault, like happened to way too many women in Hollywood, tragically, it is still reminiscent of that coercive power dynamic.

I watched his interview with Margaret Whaley and Jimmy Kimmel like, jokingly asked her about the football because everybody knows the foot of yours.

Your feet are prominently featured in the movie.