A critique


I couldn't really get into this one. I feel like this was a all style/no substance type of movie. It was beautifully shot, the recreation of 60's Hollywood was well done and the acting was excellent (especially from DiCaprio) but I can't say that it was a memorable movie/experience. I'm glad I finally watched it so it's scratched off my list but that will probably be the only time I see it. I just don't get what people are getting out of it other than the 60's nostalgia, which I'm guessing is the point of it, but IMO if that was the purpose of the movie the 3rd act just poops all over it. I mean it was entertaining to see but it felt like watching a different movie (especially the last scene in the pool which is just ridiculous). In a way it felt like the first two acts were a tribute to 60's Hollywood but the 3rd act was just Tarantino going all "From Dusk Till Dawn" on it to satisfy the audience who were expecting some over-the-top violence from a typical Tarantino movie as to not let that audience down. Even leaving the third act out I can't say that I really enjoyed it overall. It felt just felt very bland.

reply

I think you missed all the symbolism and messaging of that final act.

For me the film is all substance, minimal style, especially in comparison with Tarantino's previous efforts, most of which have gone overboard on the style end. The recreation of LA is just one aspect of the film, and one that appeals to some more than others. It's akin to Scorsese building a recreation of 1860s New York for Gangs of New York. It adds to the immersive effect of the film, but in and of itself it's but one ingredient in the film.

The beauty of the film for me lies in the characters, their stories, and the overarching themes of the film. I enjoyed the development and changes the characters underwent, though the main thrust of the film isn't so much 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. Both are fascinating character studies.

reply

I enjoyed the development and changes the characters underwent, though the main thrust of the film isn't so much 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.


I get that's what Tarantino was going for but I didn't get that feeling from the third act. If the point was to show how Hollywood was changing and Dalton had to either adapt to the new changes or his career was over this was all done in the first two acts. The final act was a complete mess IMO and was just Tarantino doing revisionist history while delivering gratuitous violence to appeal to a certain audience.

reply

In the finale, 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, at which point 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. Significantly, the flamethrower itself was leftover from a movie. Even when Dalton does something heroic, he does it in a fake way (killing someone already dying) with movie props.

As he did at Spahn Ranch, Booth calmly wins the day through natural toughness and ability, after which Dalton fools himself, and others, into believing he also saved the day, using outlandish movie props in the process. It’s the Spahn Ranch/ Western movie set dichotomy from earlier in the film all over again.

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 Dalton 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.

reply

Thank you for that explanation of the third act. I guess the symbolism went right over my head as I felt it was too over-the-top. My main problem with it (which I also address in another thread about the Manson plot) is involving fictious characters with real life people. If the movie was a character study on an aging actor and his stuntman it didn't make sense to have them interact with characters that aren't fictional. You don't need to change history to make a point. It just felt forced on Tarantino's part as he wasn't sure if he wanted to make a character study or a tribute to 60's Hollywood and decided to do both at the same time. It just didn't really sit right with me.

reply

I dunno
I thought it was brilliant giving life to the four people who were tragically murdered in 1969.
They also gave Rick a chance at a future new career in film.
I grew up in that era so i loved going in the Time Machine

reply

It's neither a time machine nor revisionist history (though viewers who think so will love the Good Guys Win).

Tarantino is playing with a parallel world (like Inglourious Basterds), not an alternate history:
https://martinschell.substack.com/p/tarantino-alternate-history-or-parallel-world

reply

It's definitely style over substance. My mother gave this a scathing review "There is no story in it". She's the next Ebert, god bless her.

reply

I agree with your take. Very well acted and the shots are fantastic, but the plot is all over the place and then the tone at the end changes entirely. As you said, it's like it becomes an entirely different movie. Seemed like the comical extreme violence and gore (which you still could have had without the comedy) were there just so we could call it a Tarantino film. My favorite scenes were Leo on set with the girl and him in the trailer freaking out. Disappointed with this one, but I would still say it's worth seeing at least once.

reply