MovieChat Forums > Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019) Discussion > Did QT forget to put a story into this o...

Did QT forget to put a story into this one? (spoilers)


Where was the plot???
How is this so long when theres no F**** story?


It had the rest of the ingredients
good actors ,
great sets
60s/70s nostalgia
cools cars
period costumes

a great snapshot of 60s California.

all of that is a great backdrop for a movie
But without anything actually happening thats all it is.

I heard it was a "slow burner" so left it till now (3 years after release)
I had a whole sunday evening , I was ready to watch a long , slow moving drama that i THOUGHT might turn out to be pretty good , given all of the above ingredients , and QT writing and directing .

But I didnt bank on
ABSOLUTLEY FUCK ALL HAPPENING .

I later find out this is very loosely based on some real events concerning Charlie Manson
That might have made 2 of the scenes more interesting ... but doesent excuse the complete lack of story .


I thought the story might have started when Cliff visits the "commune" ... but no
Its just a bit of foreshadowing for the last 10 minutes.
No plot develops
or even starts .

I feel i had two and a half hours stolen.
This could have been edited down to 20 minutes plotwise - the first 10 mins and the last

reply

Sometimes some directors make some movies purely for themselves and not definitively for the audience.

This movie was made so Tarantino could jerk-off watching it, sitting at his home.

He brings in all his alternate history fantasies (Like what if Sharon Tate had survived, What if Hitler was killed by some Nazi-hunting American soldiers), Foot-fetishm, his personal dislike of Bruce Lee etc. and force-fed this plot-less baggage to the audience without even giving a background of Charles Manson and whilst assuming that the entire world must be aware of the Manson Family and digest this pile of crap easily and moan about Sharon Tate.

Its not even a slow-burner. The lack of threat & Anti-climax in the scene where Pitt visits the Spahn Ranch, is a proof of QTs desperate attempt to create tension and reach for style-over-substance objective and failing.



reply

I agree. For me, this is the last QT flick that I’d be eager to revisit (and I’m a big fan of his work). IMO, this is much lesser than the sum of its parts.

There are certainly moments to love about this movie, but it almost feels like a chore to watch it in one sitting. Like, the 4-hour version of The Hateful Eight runs so much more smoothly for me.

reply

SHITTY TAKE...GUES YOU IDIOTS ARENT FANS OF 60S/70S CINEMA...YOU KNOW THE LAST GOLDEN AGE OF FILM ACCORDING TO ALMOST EVERYONE.

reply

Those lables are just given by nostalgia junkies , and vary depending on their age.
For me the 80s had some great films. Is that not allowed to be a "Golden Age" ?
(especially given that the 80s ended well over a generation ago)


Also , whats being a fan (or not ) of 60s/70s cinema got o do with not liking this turd?
It cant get by purely by being set in the 60s , it also has to be good.
Or at least , "Not a total pointless navel gazing snooze fest"

reply

DUDE... I WAS BORN IN 81...ALL MY FAVORITE FLICKS ARE FROM THE ERA...THAT SAID...THIS WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF 60S/70S CINEMA NOT MADE IN THE ERA...IT IS ALSO VERY ENTERTAINING.

reply

I totally agree. Of all his movies, this was something QT pretty much made just for himself. That's fine. He's earned that privilege. I almost feel like the movie not having a point was the point. I just didn't get it.

reply

I do like that you acknowledge a movie can be made for reasons other than being story-driven.
I want to like this movie for what it's TRYING to do, which I think is to capture a very particular time in SoCal culture, but I don't think it hits the mark.
However, it also seems very watchable to me, more like an entertaining sitcom than a thoughtfully constructed film.
It's colorful, it's easy to follow without being pandering, there are plenty of interesting scenes moving from one to the next that I find it at least clever.

reply

There's a lot of truly wonderful scenes in this. It was like an artist doodling. Like stream of consciousness. And the only connective tissue was, as you point out, the time and place in which it was set. It also felt like a practice movie, like QT was refining some old tricks, and learning some new ones. Getting ready to make his magnum opus.

reply

One big problem I have with Once ... in H, is it looks and seems closer to a parody of the 60s than an actual attempt to more closely represent how things were "really" like then. Like it's a hyper, stylized take on the time, sort of tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure this is clear to some viewers.
Although I suppose QT watchers understand how he plays with our expectations concerning how certain characters fit into the period a film is set, (as well as an almost cartoonishly colorful mise-en-scene), this one seems a little more tricky. Maybe my own expectation is of something more respectful and insightful of this period, and this is not QT's intent. There's a thread asking why does QT hate hippies, and maybe since I kind of LIKE hippies, I'm a little sensitive of seeing the sub-culture lampooned and having only the worst aspects of it portrayed. But in the end, (and I hate to say it, but), it is what it is, and that we can see it as having nuance and multiple layers says as much about we viewers as does the film.
Again, instead of getting a sincere homage to this period, it's aim is to have fun with it, but it's too close to getting it right when it really doesn't, so I wrestle with it. And that's only one aspect to the film I find intriguing.

reply

Your post is the exact reason I never watched it. The synopsis provides exactly no storyline. A documentary about the rise and fall and rise of Robert Downey Jr would be more interesting.

reply

Open up your mind. Don't be a square.

reply

The guy should go have a steak at Jack Rabbit Slim’s and chill out a little.

reply

ILJ, you're missing out on a pretty damn good movie.

reply

The The Tate–LaBianca murders basically ushered in, what many consider to be, the end of the golden age of Hollywood. The bulk of the film is an immersion into that time following the main characters. They foil Manson’s plans and that golden age is allowed to continue and our heroes, whose careers were fading, will now have success because they are now in with upcoming star Sharon Tate who now will not die at the hands of Manson’s minions.

Most of my film favorites were made in the 70’s-80’s, but many agree that Hollywood’s golden age occurred before then. In my opinion it’s a great film.

reply

Even if all thats true , and the viewer was familiar with manson , and aware that the movie was about this,
which shouldnt have to happen in advance - the film should "exposition" these things ....

Its still 90% filler !

The bulk of the film is an immersion into that time following the main characters.
theres more to that than just watching them go about their everyday lives
It has to be interesting at least !

That film with walburg about the porn industry of the 70s was basically a similar sort of "immersion" but at least it moved along , and was interesting .



reply

I respect your opinion and many people feel the same as you.

reply

That’s a nice take on it. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don’t think it immediately heightens my opinion of the movie, but your opinion is appreciated.

I’ll keep your opinion in mind the next time I watch it. Hehe…it’s funny that I know I’ll eventually watch it again, even if my opinion of it is currently very middling.

reply

Think of the end when she opens the gates and Rick Dalton walks through and Sharon Tate says through the speaker “come up and meet my friends.” It’s all symbolic. If you watch it again, I hope you enjoy it more.

reply

Some movies are more flash than story and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. This one worked really well in my view.

The last film that I saw that I think was kind of similar to this was American Hustle. However, I really didn't like American Hustle, I thought Once Upon a Time was a lot better.

reply

I wholeheartedly disagree. The film told a deep and complex story, and I found it thought-provoking. I watched it three times in the theater, and now own a copy.

reply

what character development did our two mains go through?

reply

" three times in the theater,"

wow! well he must've seen something in it . god knows what!

reply

it has gotten better over time for me ill admit it. but thats only because

1. the first time was such a disappointment
2. I can skip all the "look how innocent and adorable and pure Sharon Tate is" scenes and focus on the moderately interesting two mains

only thing I can see is like ive said before its nostalgia porn. the cars, the soundtrack, the images. its like stranger things for those born in the area and grew up in the late 60s

reply

It's like Stranger Things minus foot fetishes and minus an Upside Down. Just the kids hanging round doing nothing basically.

reply

agreed. the character barely have an arc/grow. so why do I care? if they re the same at the end as beginning?

reply

It tells a complex and entertaining tale, and there's too much going on to absorb in one viewing. The first time I was focused on the story, and wondering "what will happen?" The second time, knowing where it was going, I was able to pay more attention to the "how did he do it?" The third time was just to enjoy it once more on a big screen with a large audience, and soak in all the little details.

reply

Complex is a good word for it. My family and I discussed this film for at least two weeks after viewing because there was just so much there. It has become one of my favorite films.

reply

Same here-- I had a lot of long discussions with several friends and family members about a number of this film's aspects. There is so much going on in this movie.

reply

Part of it is the development and change the characters underwent, but the main thrust of the film isn't how they changed, but how they related to one another, and how they were, or were not, able to fit into a world that had changed around them.

Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is the real deal. He's the genuine embodiment of the John Wayne archetype that Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) plays in his films, yet his life pales in comparison to that of Dalton's. He spends his days running errands for Dalton, constantly reassuring him that he's worthwhile, but lives in a trailer behind a drive-in while Dalton lives in luxury. Dalton got famous pretending to be Booth onscreen.

Throughout the film we see Booth effortlessly navigating dangerous situations. Whether he is casually leaping onto a rooftop to fix an antenna or talking smack to Bruce Lee then backing it up with his fists, he's a real life cowboy. His scene at Spahn Ranch is basically a real life Western. He shows up, confronts the band of outlaws, does what he says he going to do, then turns the tables on the punk who let the air out his tire. He's a bad ass and then some.

Meanwhile, Dalton is wrought with indecision and insecurity, and only shines in a pretend Western. He has to dig deep and really channel a character, and focus on the fact that he's acting. He cries over the approval of an 8-year-old girl. After his scene, in which he's compared to another famously overwrought fellow, Hamlet, he basks in congratulations for being tough in the moment of fake danger.

Then comes the end, where Booth does all the fighting, gets stabbed, kills two of Manson's clan outright, and mortally wounds the third, who staggers into the pool and would have drowned anyway, when Dalton, in an over-the-top fake Hollywood manner, as opposed to Pitt doing it with his fists and his faithful dog, burns her to death with a flamethrower. And then, of course, Dalton is given all the credit. He ends up relating his heroic tale to Sharon Tate and her friends while Booth is being taken to the hospital, and the film ends with him being granted entrance to the New Hollywood that had previously shut him out, and leaving behind the Old Hollywood, and the best friend who gave him access to it.

By this, I don't mean he was personally abandoning his friend. I mean that as Booth was being driven away in an ambulance, having suffered from an injury that would almost certainly end his career as a stuntman, Dalton was finally being allowed "behind the Green Door," and was on the cusp of starting a new acting career, one that likely wouldn't require a stuntman. He'd still be buddies with Booth, but the days of "them against the world" are over, and Booth will go back to his meager life in a trailer, while Dalton will live among the New Hollywood elite.

There's also a clear implication that moving forward, Dalton is going to be performing in more modern roles. No more westerns or retro action flicks that require a stuntman, but rather films like Polanski made-- psychological thrillers, crime noir dramas— films that require the acting chops he was able to channel in the earlier scene, with the child.

By 1969 the rugged leading man days of Hollywood have wound down, and the meek anti-hero days have dawned. The leading men are no longer of the archetype from which Dalton's image was built. Suddenly hippie types like Kristoffer Tabori, Michael Sarrazin, and Chris Jones are getting leading roles. The hippie children of Dalton-esque actors are making movies, actors like Robert Walker, Jr., Peter Fonda; even Arlo Guthrie is starring in films! And even actors we today think of as tougher. or at least more staid-- Jack Nicholson and Michael Douglas come to mind-- got their start playing counter-culture, shaggy, hippie types.

The sense I got from that last scene was that between a new wife and a pass behind the Green Door into New Hollywood, Dalton no longer needs Rick the way he once did, and their friendship will never be the same. Compare this to the first time we see them together, where Dalton breaks down in tears, and needs Rick to pick him up.

reply

There you go.

This movie has plenty of plot and detail and character development. You have just laid it out wonderfully. I don't understand people who don't see it.

.and though it is a "fictional re-write of history" for Cliff and Rick to kill the Mansons and save the day, it solves THEIR fictional story by rejuvenating Rick's career and likely allowing him to keep paying Cliff after all (or to break up as you have detailed).

This is a photo finish to me, though: will Cliff Booth now be a celebrated national hero, or will his rumored wife-killing still haunt him? Modernly, I think the hero role would win.

reply

Thank you. And yes, I wonder what people were focusing on if they watched the film and came away thinking there was no story.

I can see Booth being lauded as a hero, though likely framed in way that makes it seem that he and Dalton fought together to save the day. However, when all is said and done, he'll still go home to his trailer behind the drive-in movie theater, and live paycheck-to-paycheck, especially if he can no longer work as a stuntman.

reply

I can see Booth being lauded as a hero, though likely framed in way that makes it seem that he and Dalton fought together to save the day. However, when all is said and done, he'll still go home to his trailer behind the drive-in movie theater, and live paycheck-to-paycheck, especially if he can no longer work as a stuntman

--

Probably. The "wife killing" thing would be brought up in any article about him, so he'd probably continue on, low profile. Indeed, maybe a "rejuvenated" Rick would just keep paying him. Cliff did, pretty much, save Rick's life, if the Mansons had succeeded at their task they would have killed Rick. So Rick "owes Cliff one."

Also key is that Cliff looks satisfied with his life and that trailer and that great dog. He's a very contented man. And though we don't see it, we can be sure that he can still get women who don't know his "record."

There is this, by the way: at the end, Rick thanks Cliff -- but doesn't follow the amublance to the hospital. Nor does Rick -- as Cliff suggested -- go into his house to care for his new wife and the dog. No, Rick follows the trail to his "beautiful friendship" with Sharon Tate and company. A fading star with a star's instinct for a comeback. Cliff and the wife and Brandy the dog can wait.

reply

I appreciate your sentiment here. While I have problems with the execution in this movie, I do like what it aspires to.
Seems like a lot of people think a movie is just The Set Up > The Pursuit > The Payoff. So if the film seems to lack appeal, they will blame the lack of an easily followed plot. But I think a film should have atmosphere and wit and unpredictability, none of which need to be attached to a plot.

reply

yes there did seem to be a cohesive through line and not an ounce of character devleoepement. which coulda easily been Manson and the spawn ranch.. and maybe ending with Leos character becoming not a pussy and relying on Clint to save him.

but ya Tarintino was more obsessed with doing a late 60s Hollywood nostalgia porn/ Tate alternative reality. rather than what we got

reply

Yeah I was disappointed in this one. As you say, not enough happened. Unfortunately every Tarantino film since the 90's has been spoiled by his ego and personal fetishes, whether to a small extent or a large one, and this one was on the large side. I was interested in only 2 scenes that actually gave the viewer a bit of tension, drama, and entertainment, and the rest was rather dull nothingness.

It's my least favourite movie of his along with Death Proof.

reply

Maybe this movie isn't for you. It made bank and is critically acclaimed and loved by regular audiences so there's that. Have you looked up any forthcoming M.Bay or Netflix movies? They seem to be more your tempo.
Stay away from Mad Men and shows like that is my advice.

reply