Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is probably Quentin Tarantino’s most polarising movie in his entire line-up. Coming out during July of 2019, the film was heavily anticipated as it would be Tarantino’s 9th movie overall and one that would be talking about a particular real-life event; the Mason family and the brutal murders they committed in Hollywood. With an idea that could easily match with Tarantino’s crazy style, people were going in with high hopes and most seemed to leave satisfied, enough people loving it that it’s already up for plenty of Oscar nods. With every positive cheer however, there’s always a negative backlash to a movie that comes out with people praising it like mad, leading another side to bash it as one of Tarantino’s less memorable movies, in some ways both sides are correct. In the 1960s, aging film actor Rick Dalton (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) is finding that he is losing his mojo and finds himself working for an Italian cowboy movie which may be his last shot at stardom. On the other side, his best friend and stunt double, Cliff Booth (played by Brad Pitt) also finds that his position is becoming less of a work buddy and more of a personal servant, which he seems to be fine with even though it gets him connected with the Mason cult, who plan to spring their murderous ways on actress Sharon Tate (played by Margot Robbie). Fans have praised the movie for its spontaneous tone, impressive sets and aesthetics and Tarantino’s essence being felt throughout a good chunk of the acting and humor, however it was also panned for its paper-thin story, forgettable characters, less-than-stellar jokes, and not even taking full advantage of the concept they were given. All these points do factor into making a movie that while clearly well made and features a lot of good stuff, feels like a bit of a downgrade compared to most of Tarantino’s other work.

Getting the biggest problem out of the way immediately, the narrative is particularly non-existent. Throughout this almost three-hour movie, it doesn’t even feel like this movie has a structured storyline until the last 20mins. The movie kinda feels like a bunch of scenes shot together that don’t necessarily create a flowing narrative, but instead create a separate event that holds the movie together until it remembers to have something of purpose by the film’s ending. The only hint of story that comes from this movie is from DiCaprio’s acting problems but that still doesn’t have much focus or even a complete conclusion, and the Mason stuff which comes out of nowhere and is only included to give some credence when they show up at the end. Most Tarantino movies have simple narratives, but they always have a clear end-goal in mind, even something as loose and all over the place as Pulp Fiction knew to keep the focus on the containments of the briefcase and how everything connected to that, and this movie doesn’t even have that. The movie feels strangely un-Tarantino in aspects; the push for a real-life story told in a different universe perspective sounds interesting, but it’s played safe up until the last scenes, so it wasn’t using his best talents to their fullest, in some of the satire and visuals it works okay, but story-wise it’s pretty unmemorable. The people and world don’t feel crazy enough to drag people in and the ending feels even more drastically different as it doesn’t even feel tonally consistent, which is probably the point, but it could have used more of that in the movie. To the film’s credit, even if the subject matter is pretty weak and it’s nowhere near as insanely grabbing, it’s not told badly or boring per say; the actors are directed well and even with the running time, it doesn’t feel draining until maybe the final third where everything seems to feel separate and different from the earlier scenes.

Characters in a Tarantino film are very much like insane cartoon characters; they aren’t very complex or in-depth but rather they work because of the actors they get to portray them or the story itself is interesting or quirky enough that it makes them more interesting because of it. This movie doesn’t get that pleasure, as its attempts of trying to set it to real-life takes away the more insane aspects of Tarantino movies that people want to see. Each character’s initial setup should actually work pretty well in a Tarantino crazy movie; an out-of-luck actor, a disgruntled stunt double, a famous actress, these could work really well but it doesn’t let them go all out and instead leaves them feeling pretty shallow and onenote without anything interesting backing them up. There’s only really two characters in this movie, Leo and Brad’s characters, which are passable but not very engaging. Margot Robbie is a great actress, but she barely seems to have a point in the movie other than the fact that she doesn’t die. Speaking of acting, everybody does a good job at making this feel over-the-top but still grounded enough that when it needs to be serious it can work, something that Tarantino has always been pretty good at and it seems to work here as well. Brad Pitt is good as the side man, Margot Robbie for what she’s given does good enough. Leo is always an actor that seems to always be trying but very rarely gives legitimately good performances, here it’s a stable middle ground. While it still has his tropes in acting with his screaming, acting like a child and never being subtle, Tarantino can work around that well enough here and he does have a few good scenes where it doesn’t just feel like him being himself like most of his other roles.

The movie’s aesthetics really feel like it’s being shot in 1960s Hollywood. The colors in the movie are a lot brighter and cleaner than normal, which gives the movie are nice shine to it that really helps the environment feel more alive and more in tune with the 60s time period. The sets are quite impressive, even some being so close that it fooled people into thinking they were real places, and other times they did just change Hollywood to look the part, that level of dedication does help this movie feel more authentic which helps when the film is trying to be seen as real life. The movie does have a Tarantino feel in how he structures his jokes and how it can be both visual and verbally pretty odd and eccentric.  While nothing especially funny is being said or shown, it’s told and shown in a way that it could be funny, clearly using his strength of directing to structure these flimsy moments together in a way that works in creative odd way. His talent of making non-linear stories does make it so that at least he can make the movie feel more balanced than it actually is because of how he tells it.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a good movie, but for Tarantino that’s still a pretty big downgrade. While his movies are usually dramatic, blaring, in-your-face memorable, this one is more subdued, quiet, down-to-earth, simplistic. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its good moments, like a lot of the behind the scenes aspects help this movie out quite a bit, like the directing, locations and tone overall, the light-weighted story was his attempt at trying something different but without going far enough away from his usual style to make it work. It needs a better structure, it needs better humor, it needs better characters; for a return it’s a bit underwhelming but he shouldn’t be blacklisted for it in any way. Though it’s strange that Leo has played southern sounding cowboy-like figures twice in Tarantino’s work, this one is meant for the fans of the crazy man himself and for those people, this should satisfy just fine. His other movies will offer up something funnier, smarter, and more precise, but as just a stand-alone movie, much worst stuff has come out of Hollywood. Decide for yourself if this is a story that deserves its universe-changing happy ending.