Post by Vits on Oct 18, 2020 12:36:22 GMT
Quentin Tarantino's movies are known for mundane conversations that manage to absorb the viewer. His ability to write good dialogue is usually the main reason. In ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, the main reason is how the actors deliver their lines. Not that they were badly written or anything, but there are no memorable quotes. Fred Raskin's editing is weird (and not in the cool way it's intended). Kurt Russell's narration comes and goes without any rhyme or reason and, several times, he redundantly mentions a date or time while an on-screen text is showing it. Whenever a period piece shows archive footage to provide context, it normally takes about 2 seconds. That's enough for the viewer to recognize the clip. Here, they're shown for much longer. In some cases, the scene from a movie or TV episode is almost played in its entirety. I know Quentin likes to pay homage, but there's no point in that if it's going to ruin the pacing. Not to mention that his strenght is taking elements from other works and adding his own style. Let's play a game. Imagine placing the climax of INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS onto PULP FICTION. It wouldn't fit, right? That's this movie in a nutshell. We get over 2 hours of different people who are somehow connected doing all sorts of things without that much plot progression, but time flies by thanks to the writing, directing and acting. There's even a very long sequence about a fictional TV show. I was so invested that I kind of forgot I was watching actors playing actors playing characters. I will say that the tone and especially the camera work and editing felt too modern for a TV pilot in 1969. Anyway, the climax is an over-the-top gore fest that reveals that this is an alternate timeline. It's fun to watch, but a "This was just a slice of life" ending would've been more appropriate. Unlike I.B., there are no layers of depth (like the bittersweet irony of a person sacrificing themselves to kill Nazis without killing the specific Nazi they wanted to get revenge on) or an ambiguety on how the future will be affected. It's a revisionist fantasy for the sake of it that has a clear outcome. The villains experience a violent encounter, but it felt to me that the women received a more brutal treatment than the man. Coincidence?
8/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
The Oscars aren't about logic; it's more about strategies to get as many awards for a film as possible, so the categories are kept vague. DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor (mediocre performance, but he's a big name and a previous winner, so now he's a Big Star and has to be nominated, just like Streep almost always gets a nomination for her show-off performances), which means Pitt can't be nominated for Best Actor for the same movie because they'll cancel each other out.Sorry, but everything you said is factually wrong.
8/10
-------------------------------------
You can read comments of other movies in my blog.
