A film review.

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.

So here's this video.

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.

But he's kind of a burnout right now.

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.

And as you'll see, I disagree.

Okay, so let's just dive into 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.

That's just like a whole scene.

Nothing happens.

They're just chilling to their houses.

It just was a little bit boring.

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?

What is this hollow and just getting?

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.

A.

But as somebody who lives in L.

A.

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.

A.

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.

A.

But then boring if you don't.

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.

The 2nd 1 though, was so uncomfortable.

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.

It's like super pornographic.

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.

They're very prominent.

Unfortunately, unfortunately.

What?

You don't like that?

And she said that Tarantino asked her to do it, and she said No, Like, my feet are really ugly.

Like she clearly didn't want her feet to be in the movie.

Yeah, when Clinton first suggested that I put my feet on the dashboard, I was like, Okay, just let's be honest here.

Like, check these guys out.

I don't know what you want.

T o them.

My toes are all crossed together.

Um, no, no.

Good.

Did you make it more eager to get your actual feet in it When you started, it became a challenge for him.

Yeah, you probably took You probably should have gone the other way.

You know, said yes.

I'd like to get those guys front center like, tell me that's not an uncomfortable dynamic.

Especially like knowing that you're working with a director who is very highly regarded in Hollywood but also has a Bigfoot finish.

Like I don't know what actually went on in the situation, but it makes me feel like she wanted to say no.

But her no was not respected.

And then she ended up having to do it because She is a young actress in Hollywood working for Tarantino.

I could write a whole fucking dissertation about this, but it was also problematic to me on the press tour.

How Margot, Robbie and more Greek Way.

We got asked about their feet, but nobody asked Tarantino like, Why do you keep putting these weird foot shots into movies like I saw another interview with Margot Robbie, where they asked, Is it socially acceptable to you?

Put your bare dirty feet up on the seat in the theatre and it's so uncomfortable watching her and Brad Pitt and Leo kind of play it off.

Sharon puts her feet up, her bare feet up on a seat in a movie theater, and they're dirty.

I don't care if they're dirty.

I mean, how is that ever appropriate in a movie theater for someone's bare feet to be put on the sixties?

Sure.

Waas, right?

I mean, I wouldn't be a good question.

I did think about it.

I was like, Does this?

I don't want to convey that she's rude or in polite because she's neither of those things.

You have the space if you don't have neighbors close by.

Okay, Okay, Okay.

Maybe shoes.

Anyway, it's what She just David Mamet problem.

But they weren't a couple other important moving.

Why's it Margot Robbie's responsibility to justify the foot shop so clearly Tarantino, who asked her to do it like, Why don't people ask him to his face?

What the fuck is up with that?

Just an idea.

I think that points to will order if you that the press circuits and late night talk shows are super dominated by white men right now.

So the choice of which questions to ask, whom is still very much patriarchal?

Oh, let's talk about the end of this movie.

The thing I love about Tarantino movies normally is that the ending feels like the satisfaction of, like clicking that last puzzle piece into place and then looking at this completed puzzle, I feel like that's how Tarantino normally writes is he has all of these like weaving motivations that conflict with each other and characters who can end up all together in like one perfect ending.

And the ending was good in this movie, but it really did not tie up all of those loose ends in that beautiful way that I was expecting.

I'm gonna say some spoilers here.

So if you haven't seen the film yet, stop watching this video.

Now you got your morning.

Okay, Spoiler time.

So at the end of the film, these hippies, like, randomly decide to go up and murder Leo and Brad.

I don't know if it's just me, but I would have loved to see a pregnant Margot Robbie fighting off and killing the murderer's herself.

I almost think that would have justified how did she She came across in the rest of the film because it creates this expectation of a woman who's going to be a victim who is very ditzy and can't fend for herself and then turns it on its head when she is like kicking ass with these murderers.

I think that would be super cool.