Year: 2019
Director: Quentin Tarantino
This seems to have gathered quite a buzz around it, which I find strange. I feel that all these people drawn to the irresistible bromance pairing of Leo and Brad are going to be ever-so-slightly disappointed. In fact there were a few walkouts in Cineworld tonight.
Just be warned that this is a meandering, languid film with little sense of forward momentum for the majority of its two-and-a-half hour running time. At times it (seriously) resembles a game of Grand Theft Auto. (Is there a GTA 1969 edition?) Brad driving around Los Angeles on a dreamy sunny afternoon, listening to cool music, carrying out odd jobs and picking up hippy chick hitchhikers.
I’d also compare the overall feel to Robert Altman’s Shortcuts or PT Anderson’s Inherent Vice. Good films, but both the kinds of films where you can doze off in the middle for half an hour and not miss much. There’s very little of Tarantino’s trademark snappy dialogue and pop philosophising.
I won’t spoil the plot, but it’s no secret that it’s set against the shadow of the Manson murders. A firm awareness of that grisly moment in history will be most helpful when you go to see this. But Tarantino’s mood is wistful rather than sinister – to him, the Manson watershed killed the sixties but also birthed the seventies. Every cloud, and all that.
Is it a great film? I’m not sure yet. It certainly doesn’t have the instant appeal and tension of other Tarantino films like The Hateful Eight or Pulp Fiction. But it has a dreamy vibe that really resonates. You feel as if you want to visit that place again, it brings the era to life so vividly.
The standout performance is definitely Di Caprio. His character is an old school actor who is on the verge of being washed up, who at first seems petulant and unsympathetic, but who gradually reveals an endearing soft side and an understated redemptive arc. Brad gets the laughs though.
And as it’s Tarantino, the jukebox soundtrack is reliably brilliant. It’s a funky brew of ever-so-slightly-obscure late sixties pop. The key gems are Simon and Garfunkel’s Mrs Robinson (not so obscure, that one) and The Stones’ Out Of Time. Both lend an air of euphoria to match the sun-drenched atmosphere. We also get Macarthur Park and Deep Purple, so it’s all good.
Might appeal to people who enjoyed:
Well, Tarantino is a micro-genre of his own, isn’t he? So if you’ve seen the rest of his films you’ll watch this one as well. I mentioned Paul Thomas Anderson above, and that’s a good comparison I think. So would Jim Jarmusch or Gus Van Sant. It’s definitely got a far more arty, understated feel than other Tarantino films. Less swearing and shouting as well. More drifting and mumbling.
I very much look forward to seeing this. “Meandering and languid” pretty much sums up what I recall of the year – I was in my mid-teens at the time; school, girls, music, footie, not a care in the world really, and to me ’69 seemed like it was just the latest in a series of astonishing years. What a splendid review; thanks for that!
Looking forward to this!
I’ll probably end up going to see this.
I haven’t really enjoyed anything much that he’s done since Jackie Brown but weirdly still ended up going to see everything since then (apart from Death Proof). Probably in the hope that he’s still got a decent film in him somewhere. And usually his films get great reviews which just adds to the disappointment!
“I haven’t really enjoyed anything much that he’s done since Jackie Brown”. Exactamundo same here. I watched Reservoir Dogs t’other night (it’s on YouTube) and thought how it knocks the spots off any of the post Jackie Brown output. Mind you, Mrs Cowslipper’s review has intrigued me – “meandering”, “languid”, “dreamy”, “arty”, “understated”, Jarmusch/Van Sant: sounds right up my street.
Death Proof has it’s moments and a great soundtrack as shown below. Ultimately kind of empty though. WARNING! SCENES OF VIOLENCE
“Ultimately kind of empty though”…. Just sounds like Tarantino to me.
Yes well I can’t really disagree.
Yeah, but a bit of “fluffy” fun, which I think was kind of the point.
Just watched that. I’ve never seen that film and I think I made the right decision. I get that it’s a tribute to grindhouse and yadda yadda but no thanks.
Hm, I think there’s more to it. The “grindhouse” schtick is the catalyst for it, but the film is “about” a lot more than that. One day I’ll write up a big defence in praise of it, but too busy right now!
We’ve booked to see it tonight (my other half is a huge Tarantino fan).
Saw it, loved it, blimey! In that order.
Great review which has got me very keen to see it.
“Drifting and mumbling.” That will do me nicely.
Stockholm Film Festival screened Pulp Fiction in Rålambhovspark last night. That brought back some memories. There was a great roar of applause when the opening credits burst onto the screen to the sound of Dick Dale’s fabulous jangly Misirlou.
The memories!! When it was shown in the festival in 1994, it won lots of awards and Quentin did a Q & A session. I was there.
Who asked the first question? DuCool of course.
The soundtrack is out today, and it’s an absolute doozy. Definitely a must-purchase. A really infectious time capsule of mainly pop bubblegum hits. It acts as a firm argument for the rehabilitation of Paul Revere and The Raiders into the pantheon of cool, which is no bad thing.
I think my comparison to Grand Theft Auto in my review above is spot-on (why, thank you me) and I’m surprised no other reviews I’ve seen have made this comparison. Anyway, the GTA model seems to have filtered down to the soundtrack, because this soundtrack CD sounds for all the world like one of the radio stations you would listen to in that game, right down to the DJ interjections and period adverts.
But, the fatal flaw: It doesn’t have (possibly for licencing reasons?) Out of Time by the Stones! That was one of my musical highlights of the film. Yes, I know I have it already but it would be good to have it as part of this package. Ah well.
The well-curated jukebox film soundtrack (of which surely Tarantino is the undisputed master, although Scorsese probably gives him a run for his money) is possibly another thread for another day.
This is the best film of his since, ooh, Jackie Brown. The slowish pace (with just enough interleaving of action) and sundrenched feel is perfect for these characters in their time and place. Brad Pitt just nicks this from under Leo’s feet.
Q lets his cinema nerd off the leash in this one for sure. A great alternate history of the era and the end of the Hollywood studio system.
That ‘best since Jackie Brown’ opinion is one I have seen a lot since this film came out, which surprised me as I found Jackie Brown was a bit of a bore at the time and haven’t really thought about it, or seen it mentioned much, since. I’ll pop out to CEX at lunch and see if I can pick up a copy.
Well I am not a fan of his other films, apart from Pulp Fiction. I find them immature (especially the slavery one and the Nazi one) and trying too hard. Shame really because at the time, doing Jackie Brown right after Pulp Fiction, it made me think he might be a genius in the making. Turns out he was just a very very good director with questionable (to me) taste.
Yeah, the constant praise for Jackie Brown baffles me as well. Without hesitation I would say that’s the worst of his films. It just lacks bite. BUt….. I’m saying this from memory. I’ve only watched it once (when it came out) and was sorely disappointed it wasn’t a continuation of the same style as Pulp Fiction. I remember at the time also being really angry at De Niro being underused.
I think I need a re-appraisal of it, to be fair.
I think part of the appeal was that after the dazzling brilliance of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction everyone expected him to attempt something equally groundbreaking (and probably fail). The fact that he didn’t, opting for a more conventional and understated film, was a positive surprise in itself.
Good point.
The understated feel of Jackie Brown left the gates open for him to go truly bonkers with Kill Bill and Death Proof. (And I’m a big fan of the latter, by the way).
I remember being disappointed and baffled by Inglourious Basterds upon first viewing. It seemed oddly paced, achingly slow in places, and a wayward plot that was all over the place. I’ve grown to love it though, and once you get used to that slow, shaggy dog feel (that reaches its apex in Once Upon… Hollywood) you can learn to love his newer films.
Then, by the way, going back and watching Pulp Fiction again, you realise how slow and aimless a lot of it actually is! A LOT of the first hour is just Vincent and Mia flirting, talking rubbish and eating a meal. The film only seriously kicks into high gear when Butch and Marsellus end up tied up in that basement, which (if memory serves) is over an hour and a half into the film.
Reservoir Dogs is by far his tightest and lean film. It’s a real masterpiece in that regard.
Jackie Brown is my favourite of his. Love just about everything about it.
CEX has done the business (2 disc DVD for just 50 of your puny earthling pence) so I’ll revisit Jackie Brown in the very near future.
A good shout! Thanks for the tip – ive just done the same.
I think I’d prefer Margot’s feet to be under rather than Leo’s… 😉
Tarantino is such a clever smart arse ! Filling his movies with loads of famous actors in cameo roles. Filling his movies with loads of hip, 60’s in jokes and twisting fact with outrageous fantasy.
Admired the film rather than enthusiastically enjoying it, although smiling a lot at the smart arse 60’s references.
Stonking soundtrack as usual.
Would be appreciated most by Baby Boomers into old TV series, movies and music …….. like ….Oh yeah…… Me !!!
Saw it last night. Really not sure what to make of it. His limitations as a director not exposed as much as usual because he didn’t really have anything like a plot to worry about. It looked great. It looked expensive. People were laughing in the cinema at the violent ending, maybe it was meant to be a cartoon? Leonardo was great.
Oh and best track in the movie, Paul Revere and the Raiders “Good Thing”.
The sequence with ‘Hush’ was amazing too, a Scorsese-esque meld of music and motion.
You sound baffled by it, which to be fair was my initial reaction as well. I said above, “Is it a great film? I’m not sure yet.” — But now it’s had time to settle in my consciousness, I DO think it’s a great film. In fact I’m dying to watch it again. I’ll probably try to catch another showing before it leaves the cinema.
Yeah, I think pretty close to my reaction. I do need to see it again. Last film I saw twice in the cinema was Pulp Fiction.
Actually it reminded me somewhat of PF, more than Jackie Brown which has a pretty tight plot for him (an adaptation rather than a purely QT creation).
So I did see it again, naturally some of the tension was missing as it built up throughout. Was able to enjoy the lead performances again and focus on some of the minutiae. It’s a pretty good way to spend nearly 3 hrs.
Had to pop back in here to echo your review, having seen the film on a big screen last night. You’re spot on regarding the performances – Leo effortlessly mines that character he’s been given, and Brad is an absolute cool delight. Madame Foxy almost fainted when he went up on the roof to fix the aerial. Anyone walking out of this either has no soul – the soundtrack alone is good enough to keep me on board – or has no understanding of either California in the end days of the sixties or of Tarantino’s full body immersion in the whole milieu, which he brilliantly recreates in this wallowing joy of a film. We had a blast, laughed our socks off when the crescendo comes, and would happily sit through it all again. Quite possibly my favourite of his to date, at least at the moment, in the warm recent shadow of the story. Fantastic movie. Biblical rain and flooding on the way home seemed appropriate somehow.
Fantastic critique of the film @Vulpes-Vulpes – it is 3 weeks now since I saw it and I will gladly watch it again. It is film making of the highest quality and Bruce Lee scene was just hilarious. As a homage to 60’s California it doesn’t get any better. Tarantino at his very best.
Watched it for the second time on Friday…if possible, enjoyed it even more. ‘Wallow’ is a great description, you can just luxuriate in the brilliance of the film-making, the central performances, the attention to detail.
Saw this film a couple of weeks ago. Self indulgent tosh with a nasty aftertaste. Quite how QT has managed to turn an encyclopedic knowledge of crappy films and TV, a fondness for hellish violence and a foot fetish into a lengthy critically acclaimed career is a total mystery to me.
Seriously, I came out of this film with something approaching a foot fetish myself…
Spot on about QT. I thought his first couple of films were good, but my god didn’t people make a bloody fuss. So many of the ones he’s done since just seem… silly.
No. No, and thrice No.
WTF is wrong with self indulgent tosh if it’s this gloriously executed, playfully messes with recent shared history to set up a tempting ‘if only’ end point for the story arc, wanders all over the shop and takes its languorous time getting there and – just – looks – so – fabulously, extravagantly, fondly, humourously, affectionately, beautifully GORGEOUS all the way through?
Those aren’t crappy films and TV he’s mining his knowledge of, it’s popular culture of the highest degree, ganglebuddy. Turn on, tune in and chill out.
I saw Jackie Brown when it came out and found it dull. Should I try again?
No. You were right. Listen to the album instead. (The soundtracks are always brilliant, I’ll give him that)
Yes, you should try it again.
I thought the same (see upthread) but enjoyed it a lot more a couple of decades later.
He is capable of writing great scenes and directing them with wit and verve. Unfortunately he seems to lack the ability to connect them together so they form a coherent whole. This serves him well in Pulp Fiction with it’s fractured timelines in other of his films it’s a glaring problem.
It wouldn’t surprise me to find him a fully paid up subscriber to the auteur affectation, which is and always was a dubious idea. Film is most definitely a collective and collaborative effort whatever any egomaniacal film maker believes. It is probably at the heart of why his films have become more and more self indulgent.
I love his early films including the maligned Jackie Brown but it’s been some time since his films have merited much of a fanfare upon release.
You’ve said what I wanted to much more eloquently, even if I have remembered in the meantime that he gives good soundtrack.
He gives good playlist. It’s an easy way to hook an audience in. Good fun and very entertaining. Instant cool if the tunes are selected with care and he certainly does that. I must admit though that I do enjoy a film with a unique and memorable score.
Vertigo or Lawrence Of Arabia for instance.
BTW, if there isn’t a 1969 GTA in preparation on the back of this gem, someone has dropped a massive bollock in gamesland.
I loved this film and astonishingly so did Mrs FF who was really indifferent to going. Never been a fan of Dicaprio but he was outstanding and his interplay with Brad Pitt was as good as Newman/Redford. I can see why the ending would divide opinion though. Film of the year for me so far.
I can be a bit of a Dicaprio fanboy. Not so much recently (though I haven’t seen OUATIH) and he was really crap in The Beach, but he was amazing in Romeo + Juliet. Perfect for the role. I can’t imagine anyone doing it better. The scene (below) where he kills Tybalt is stunning stuff. I also liked him as Arthur Rimbaud in Total Eclipse and as Jim Carroll in The Basketball Diaries, both really interesting choices.
He was superb in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”?
Just reviving this thread to add two things:
(1)
Since the discussion above, I have now re-watched Jackie Brown. And I’m afraid to say it was as boring and inconsequential as I previously thought it was. I can kind of see that the central relationship between Robert Forster and Pam Grier is quite touching, but it would have suited a smaller, less overblown (i.e. shorter) film. It really just smacks of Tarantino not knowing where to go next after Pulp Fiction.
I think it also suffers from a lack of visual and aesthetic flair. The whole tone is quite muted and uninteresting – offices and apartments around LA… and the climax in a shopping mall?? In just about every other one of his films he’s hit upon a distinctive visual style, so it’s conspicuous by its absence here. I know this is a superficial thing, but it’s part of his MO to make well-dressed movies.
Overall, it feels more like one of the wave of post-Pulp Fiction imitators than Tarantino himself.
It would have been sad to see him continue down this road and to continue diluting his voice, so I’m glad he went mondo bonkers with Kill Bill. Every single one of his subsequent movies have had a “he’s doing WHAT now?” vibe about them.
(2)
The soundtrack CD is down to a fiver in Fopp and HMV, so I urge you to buy it. I got it from Santa and I’ve been playing it in the car non-stop ever since (driving around pretending I’m Brad Pitt….).
You could categorise a lot of it as smarty pants obscure retro cool, but it’s so joyful and well-sequenced it casts off any notions of being too hipster-y. “Fun” is the overall vibe.
I assumed the radio DJ interruptions were an actor, but apparently they are the real deal – archive recordings from a genuine 1969 radio station. They are just brilliant and a really nice touch, toasting the music perfectly and keeping the atmosphere going.
I’d love to see an extended soundtrack compilation, with more DJ chat and radio ads, plus more of the songs they left off this one disc version.
THis guy has created a playlist of Once Upon A Time featured songs and a lot of other stuff of similar ilk.
A lot of fun.
Thanks Junior! What a labour of love! 15 hours of Tarantinoesque tracks.
I finally got round to seeing this on a long haul flight last week. I swear they served two meals during it. Obviously watching on a tiny screen with tinny headphones while trying to eat without moving your elbows and constantly being poked in the head by the person behind who thinks you have to stab the on-screen buttons rather than caress them isn’t ideal, but perhaps that captive situation is perfect for a piece of work like this, because it is sloooow.
The previous ‘big’ film I watched was The Irishman and in many ways they’re similar – great soundtracks, incredible period detail, superb big-name performances and sprawling, meandering plots. Whole unnecessary sections where people wander about looking cool, which would never make the final cut if they weren’t the work of an auteur. Scorcese and Tarantino have both earned the right to go over three hours, even if the script itself barely extends to two.
Despite the feeling that the events in the film were unfolding in real time, I was completely immersed in it. Tarantino is a superb writer first and foremost, and I think protects his words in a way that another director wouldn’t. He just makes the scenery look good, gives actors the space to show off their chops in long takes, and points a camera at it. Then he joins these set pieces together with vintage music and cars, and a swinging miniskirt or two. No complaints from me, I like all those things.
Yes, but where did you go? Anywhere nice?
It’s interesting that you compare it to The Irishman, because I really didn’t like that. Thinking about why, I suppose The Irishman feels contrived or forced in a way that Once Upon A Time… doesn’t. The music in The Irishman is impeccable, but I think a lot of the retro stylings are maybe too obvious or in-your-face, like a big budget episode of Mad Men or something.
Pacing-wise, I feel The Irishman maybe has just too much in it. Although there are slow moments, for the most part it is significantly dialogue-heavy. I found it extremely difficult to keep track of, much more so than Goodfellas (its blueprint movie, which by comparison had a very simple plot). Compare that to the long, lingering silences and slooooow monologues in Once Upon A Time…
And (for me, this is the killer, the one main reason I can’t get on board with The Irishman) there is that creepy de-aging of the cast. I can’t think there was any motivation other than nostalgia that compelled Scorsese to work with a cast of seventy/eighty year olds and try and pass them off as being thirty/forty years younger. It simply doesn’t work (the body language and body shape is just all wrong, even before you get to the hokey CGI faces). In comparison, Tarantino frequently works with the same cast over many years, but allows them to age gracefully and play older, shlubbier characters. For example, Kurt Russell or Michael Madsen. He doesn’t bring back John Travolta and try to pass him off as a thirty year old. Even Brad Pitt in Once Upon A Time… seems to be playing “younger”, but his character, although genuinely buff, is still clearly signalled as being a good bit over the hill and too old for the new Hollywood.
I was sorely disappointed in The Irishman, and although it might be a popular hit and good for award season, I feel in the long run it will stick out as a critical mis-step in Scorsese’s career. A shame, because he still has it in him to make stunning, original movies. Even just in the last decade he has made both Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and Silence (2016). He’ll bring it back, I’m sure. Over the years he’s proven himself to be brilliant at resurrecting himself (Catholicism joke).
I saw this again on a long flight and loved it again. Given the 150-minute running time the only part that dragged was the scene where Sharon Tate visits the cinema.
And something about the Bruce Lee scene bothered me till I realised that they refer to Muhammed Ali as “Cassius Clay” throughout. I checked and Ali changed his name in 1965, four years before the film is set. A small point but the film is otherwise bang-on for recreating the period. Perhaps Ali’s enforced retirement between ’67 and ’70 for refusing the Vietnam war draft meant that people weren’t widely aware of it in 1969? Thoughts, anyone?
I can remember some calling him Cassius Clay in the 70s, not sure if his new name was adopted immediately.
Loved the Sharon Tate visiting the cinema part, I have seen it twice in the cinema. Second time was interesting, as I was watching without the tension building up throughout about what was going to ultimately happen at her house. I could concentrate on smaller things, and it was just as enjoyable.
Didn’t quite make my film of the year, but that may change in a few years time.