Once upon a time in Hollywood (4½ Stars)

I gave this film five stars when I saw it in the cinema last year, but I've decided to lower the rating after watching it again today. The film is disjointed. In 2017 it was announced that Quentin Tarantino was going to make a film about the Manson Family murders. As the release date came closer, it was reported that the film was about Hollywood at the end of the 1960's. It's actually about both. The first two hours are about the golden days of Hollywood, while the last half hour is about the Manson Family murders. Both parts of the film are perfect in themselves, but it looks like the second part has been tagged on as an afterthought. It's true, the Manson Family also appears in a scene in the first part, but the Family doesn't seem to have any great importance, along all the other things that are happening.

There's a lot that I could write about the relationship between the actor Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his stuntman Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt). I'll leave my thoughts on them until I watch the film again. In this review I'll concentrate on women's feet.

Margot Robbie is sitting in the cinema watching "The Wrecking Crew" with her feet up. I have no problems with that. When I went to see "Emerald Green" there was a teenage girl with her legs up sitting next to me, and I allowed myself a few looks. The problem is that Margot's feet are dirty. I've heard that some men like dirty feet, but not me! I find them revolting, not sexy at all.

This is Pussycat (Margaret Qualley) hitching a ride from Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt).

Pussycat has beautiful feet, and even more beautiful legs, but I have to offer her some advice: when she's hitching a ride, she shouldn't lay her head on the driver's lap. It's not safe.

Dakota Fanning plays Squeaky, the Manson Family member keeping ranch owner George Spahn as a sex slave. The other recent film about the Manson Family, "Charlie Says", goes into more detail on their relationship, but only Quentin Tarantino shows us Squeaky's feet.

"George is that way, Cliff". Why should Squeaky point with her finger when she can use her toes?

I don't know who these two girls are, but they have nice feet.

I have difficulty rating Quentin Tarantino's films in order, but this film is easy to rate. Out of his nine films, I put this in eighth place. (His weakest film is "Hateful Eight"). Apart from the film being disjointed, I have two other slight criticisms. The first is the portrayal of Bruce Lee. Why is he so arrogant? It's also shocking that a random stunt man is able to beat him in a fight.

My second criticism is the rewriting of history. When Quentin Tarantino rewrote history in "Inglourious Basterds" it didn't bother me. It had a purpose that suited the movie well. The rewriting of history in "Once upon a time in Hollywood" is puzzling. Is there a purpose behind saving Sharon Tate's life? She's saved by the random meeting of Cliff and Tex in the first part of the film. Does Tarantino want to say that random events, however minor, can change history? That's the message of "Run Lola Run". If he's ever commented on this in interviews, please let me know in the comments box below.

Success Rate:  + 2.2

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Once upon a time in Hollywood (5 Stars)

Some films are too good to watch just once. Any Quentin Tarantino film is too good to watch just once. That's why I returned to the cinema today to watch "Once upon a time in Hollywood" a second time. The cinema wasn't quite as full as it was two days ago, but let's be fair, today is a weekday, and I went to an early showing. Some people work while others are watching films. I feel sorry for them.

Watching today, I made an attempt to compare it with Tarantino's other films. There's less of a narrative, as I pointed out in my first review. It's his most self-indulgent film to date. It's all about nostalgia for a past era, in films, television and music. I'm including music, because the music that we hear on the radio is essential to the film, even more than it was in his early films ("Reservoir Dogs", "Jackie Brown" and "Death Proof"). I recognised most, but not all of the songs. I grew up in England, and England has always had a different pop music scene to America. Maybe the two music scenes are merging now, in the YouTube generation, but in the 1960's the music played on the radio in the two countries was very different.

Where does "Once upon a time in Hollywood" rank among Tarantino's films? Ask me again next time I watch it. It's difficult to compare his films. I can never decide which one I like most, they're all so good. It's not his best film, but it's definitely not his worst. I already know that it'll get a high place in my top 10 list for 2019. I'm glad I started doing a top 10 in 2015. Think of it as a snapshot of my opinion at the end of each year. When I look back at my old lists, I'd rate the films differently today. I'd put "The Walk" at the top of the list for 2015. My tastes change. Slightly.

Once upon a time in Hollywood (5 Stars)

Hollywood is the place of dreams. The problem with dreams is that they don't last. When you wake up in the morning they're gone. This is what we see in "Once upon a time in Hollywood", the 9th film by Quentin Tarantino. Sharon Tate is at the beginning of a successful career. After six years of minor roles she's finally become a face that people recognise. She expects her career to continue to dizzying heights, and her marriage to Roman Polanski is additional help.

Rick Dalton's success is waning. After years as a successful film and television actor he's having to play smaller roles. He's advised to go to Italy to make spaghetti westerns, but he thinks it's below him. The only person who believes in him is his stunt double and best friend Cliff Booth, but Cliff is on his way out as well. His bad temper makes him unpopular on film sets.

While I was sitting in the cinema I was asking myself what the film was about. When I walked out at the end I still didn't know. There doesn't seem to be a plot that leads from A to B. There are no recognisable character arcs. The story just rambles on, in a way typical for a true story, but in this case Rick Dalton and Cliff Booth are fictional characters. I'm sure they're composites of well known actors from the 1960's, but I won't know who Quentin Tarantino is thinking of until he names them in an interview. I can see some similarity between Rick Dalton and Lee Van Cleef, but I'm sure Tarantino is thinking of other actors as well.

Nevertheless, the story, or rather the non-story, is overwhelming. We're immersed in the good old days of Hollywood. Was 1969 the turning point? I don't know. I really want to hear Tarantino himself talk about the film.

I'm going to see the film again next week. Maybe I'll understand it better the second time.

Ocean's 8 (4 Stars)

Debbie Ocean, the younger sister of Danny Ocean from the Ocean's Trilogy, is released after spending five years in prison for art fraud. She's spent this time meticulously planning an extravagant jewel robbery in her head. All she needs to do is find a team to help her. She assembles a team of six women with different skills around herself. It's only women, because she doesn't trust men. It was a man who snitched on her and got her thrown into prison. The eighth woman is added late in the film.

The target is a diamong necklace worth $150 million that's been locked in a vault at Cartier in New York for 50 years. They manipulate the host of the yearly Met Gala event into borrowing the necklace to wear at the event. She's accompanied at all times by two armed security guards, but Debbie has everything planned.

This is a very good film about suave and manipulative women who manage to keep their cool while fighting against overwhelming odds. The film takes time to introduce all the characters, and by the middle of the film we're rooting for them and hoping they'll be successful. Sandra Bullock is excellent as the criminal mastermind who doesn't actually take part in the robbery; she just stands back and watches as her team do their jobs.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (3 Stars)

As the poster above says, this is the finale that will last forever. Too true. It was unnecessarily stretched over two films to keep it going. This film has more going on than the first part, but it should still have been compressed. I estimate that the story from this second part could have been told in 60 minutes. Add that to the 40 minutes from the first part plus five minutes for the final credits, and we have 105 minutes, a reasonably sized film, instead of the four hour colossus that the studios forced on us. But even the final credits were stretched out to 12 minutes 28 seconds by listing actors who only took part in the first three films of the series. It's all so tiresome.

In this film Bella makes her first steps as a new-born vampire, while attempting to look after her daughter Renesmee. The Volturi fear what Renesmee might become when she is older, so they come to America to kill her. Carlisle Cullen gathers vampires from around the world to face the Volturi, not to fight against them but to peacefully persuade them that Renesmee will be harmless. In this film not only Jacob but all of the werewolves in his tribe stand at the side of the Cullens.

Obviously the fans loved it. The film made it into the top 50 highest earning films of all time. I suspect that the majority of the viewers were either fans of the books or people who had seen the previous four films and wanted to know how the story would end. It's not worth seeing in its own right.

Twilight: Eclipse (3½ Stars)

Today I watched this film again for the first time in two years. Read my old review here. I had forgotten how weak it is. The love story between Edward and Bella has no depth, no passion. I'm sure the books must be better, or they would never have become so popular. I've received criticism of my recent reviews of the first two films in November and December, but I'm sticking to my opinion: I believe Kristen Stewart is adequate for the role of Bella. Her open-mouthed performance is just right for a teenage girl overwhelmed by being confronted with a completely different world, far away from Florida in more ways than one. Robert Pattinson is the weak link. Imagine if Ian Somerhalder had played the part of Edward. He would have been much more believable.

I enjoy Taylor Lautner's performance as Jacob, even though he has the tendency to grin too much. I still think that Bella made the wrong choice who to marry.

Something else I don't like about this film is the transformation of Jasper Hale, played by Jackson Rathbone. In the first two films he walks around looking like a confused teenager, somewhat manic, unable to control his bloodlust. In this film he steps up and becomes the leader in the battle against the vampire army. How did that happen? It lacks credibility. If any of my readers have read the books I would be glad to know if the change is just as brash in the original novels.

I'm also curious whether there's any significance in the film's title, "Eclipse", which was also the name of the book. If the book explains the title it certainly isn't apparent in the film.

Here are two photos from what I consider to be the film's visually most beautiful scene. Once more they show why Bella should have chosen Jacob. She would have got a handsome man and a faithful guard dog all in one.

Twilight: New Moon (3½ Stars)

I promised last month that I would watch all five films of the Twilight pentalogy in quick succession, but things happened. The Brian Farmer murder trial took up half of my time, and my prolonged sickness took up the other half. I still don't know for certain if I was really sick. It might just have been my depression making me feel weak and tired all day.

Anyway, I'm back on track now. This is the second film of the Twilight Saga. If I remember correctly from watching it two years ago, it's the weakest of the films. Considering Edward wasn't there for most of the film we see way too much of him; it's like artificial plot devices are being cast in to excuse appearances to make sure we don't forget him.

The main development in this part is Jacob turning into a werewolf. I had already suspected it after watching the first part, the hints were pretty thick. In fact, we hear that the presence of the Cullens in town is what has provoked the change. Bella begins to have feelings for Jacob, although she affirms at the end of the film that she will always put Edward first. I guess there's no accounting for taste. Why should she pick a moping, brooding vampire who doesn't know what he wants over a big faithful dog who will look after her to the end?

Anyone who knows me or has read my blog knows that I'm a very romantic person. Romantic films make me cry. And yet this film didn't make me shed a single tear. Something's missing. Where's the magic? I can't quite describe what's wrong. Despite my criticism of Kristen Stewart's later films, she's quite adequate for the part of Bella. The problem is probably Robert Pattinson as Edward. He's so incredibly dopey that I can't understand why an intelligent girl like Bella would want him.

Sweet Home Alabama (4½ Stars)

Lightning never strikes twice in the same place? Only in Alabama.

This film is a good example of the differences between the tastes of critics and normal people. Critics tore the film apart and gave it poor reviews, but it was a box office smash and has become an enduring favorite. Since I consider myself a normal person, not a critic, I side with the viewing public.

So what do the critics hate? Romantic comedies are a film genre that's already cast in stone with basic rules that aren't deviated from. They're predictable. They're told from a woman's perspective, and we know from the beginning who she will end up with, however many disappointments and setbacks there might be on the way. Maybe, objectively speaking, this is a reason to criticise this film and the whole genre it belongs to. But moviegoers enjoy a feel-good film with a happy ending.

Melanie Smooter and Jake Perry are childhood sweethearts in Pigeon Creek, Alabama. They grow up and get married, but the fairytale romance doesn't work out. Melanie runs away to New York, changes her name to Melanie Carmichael and becomes a successful fashion designer. She dates the city's most eligible bachelor, the son of the New York mayor. When he proposes to her she rushes back to Alabama to clean up a loose end: she's still married to Jake.

Of course, as soon as Melanie and Jake get together we see the chemistry and know they'll reunite. Only someone who's never seen a romantic comedy before wouldn't see it coming. Predictable, but I'm not complaining. The film's strength isn't only in the romance itself. It contrasts the life of the big city and the small town. It contrasts the life of the North and the South. The North/South divide in the USA is something I never truly understood before I lived in America. The South may have lost the Civil War, but the nostalgia for the pre-war days is still strong 150 years later. Melanie finds herself realising how much she's missed when she treds the soil of Alabama for the first time in seven years.

Click here to view the trailer.

Incidentally, Charlize Theron was originally signed to play Melanie, but she jumped out at the last moment. This was lucky. I can't imagine anyone but Reese Witherspoone in the role.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2 [Guest Writer] (3½ Stars)

I felt it was about time that I put in another review to satisfy Mike's nagging although I haven't been online for him to do it lately. Ha! I recently went to go see this movie in theaters. It was the only movie that was out that I really wanted to see although I did debate between this and the movie with Denzel Washington, which I still intend to see sometime soon, but this won out. And what is with all of the pornos lately? o.O

Bella (Kristen Stewart) is enjoying her new life and new powers, after the birth of their daughter, Renesmee (played by Mackenzie Foy). Soon, however, their family bliss is threatened again, by a new menace. Vampire Irina (Maggie Grace) comes to visit and sees Renesmee performing a fantastical feat and comes to the conclusion that the Cullens have transformed a child into an immortal. This is a huge faux paux and a death sentence for the entire family so Irina goes to the Volturi with the issue and that sets the Cullens on a mission to find allies to witness that Nessie is not what is claimed. 

Okay so this is the epic conclusion. This is what everyone was waiting for and in a way they did deliver. I'm not a Twilight fan and I never claimed to be. I didn't like the first one, second one, or fourth one. The third one was slightly better than the rest but that's not saying too much in my opinion. I only enjoyed it for the blood and mayhem - all 20 (?) minutes of it in the movie. The breaking dawn part 1 pushed me past my absolute limit of endurance and got on my last nerve. So don't expect me to do a review on those any time soon. You'd see nothing but a bunch of ranting from me. Now this is probably my favorite out of all of them. I won't say that it was a home run hit out of the ballpark but it didn't suck to the point that I wanted to carve my eyeballs out with a dull rusty spoon either. The things I enjoyed about this film was the fact that Bella's character finally grew a damn backbone. Most of this series she's seen as some victim that needs to be protected and it took her till the end to finally be able to play with the big boys and hold her own.

I could've cared less about the lovemaking scene between Bella and Edward. Honestly, considering some teens and preteens watch that movie I would've said it was inappropriately highlighted in the movie. Another thing that I didn't like or understand was the fact that they felt the need to CGI the child. What was the point of that? They were too cheap to get a real baby? It wouldn't have been all that difficult. It was wholly distracting during the first part of the movie and I could've done without it. I've also heard some complaints about the wolves in the movie and the CGI used for them but I didn't see anything wrong with the effects concerning that portion of things. The introduction to new characters made things interesting and opened a few more doors to us into their world outside the Cullen clan. I will say there was one or two side notes that seemed....unexplored and unexplained. For instance the man - I forget his name - that was against battling against the Volturi and was the biggest loner out of all of them. When we first meet him he seemed like he could add something interesting to the storyline. They even showed him again a few times throughout observing and making up his mind about whether he would stand with the clan or not. The director made it seem as if his opinion was truly opinion either way and yet we didn't see what that opinion was - or at least it wasn't highlighted or addressed in the movie. I was expecting him to make some grand entrance at the end of the movie during the battle and show off some amazing feat that saves an ally or two. But I got nothing from him. What was the point?? I did enjoy the ability to see the world of vampirism through Bella's eyes and experiences along with seeing all the other vampire abilities out there along with her new abilities. The child that played Renesmee was fine. It felt like she was often more a moving and living prop than anything else with no other purpose but to be proof of her humanity. If you're looking to this movie for a lot of action, don't. It has one big battle scene at the end of the movie and that was it. I will say I enjoyed the ending the most out of the entire film.

I thought I would be generous with this film and give it a three and a half stars instead of the three that some say it deserves. It wasn't knock my socks off. It was more of a good way to while away the time. I also wouldn't suggest paying to see this in theaters, not worth the movie ticket in my opinion.

Fragments (4 Stars)

This film is based on the novel "Winged Creatures", written by Roy Freirich. If anything, it is a treatise on chaos theory. A random event happens. A madman enters a diner, shoots guests at random, then kills himself. The film then follows the effects this event has on five of the survivors and their relationships to their families.

Bruce Laraby, a surgeon, loses his operating skills. He begins to experiment with an untested migraine medicine on his wife.

Carla, a waitress, loses her affection for her son.

Anne, a teenage girl, becomes deeply religious, alienating her non-religious mother.

Jimmy, a school friend of Anne's, loses his ability to speak. This causes arguments in his family.

Charlie abandons his daughter and lives in a hotel, spending his days gambling.

The randomness of the film might make it difficult for many people to enjoy. But this is what real life is all about. Things happen which have consequences. If a stone falls in the water the waves ripple long distances and have no connection to one another, apart from the initial stone.

The novel is not completely original. It copies ideas from the Japanese film "Eureka", made in 2000, which deals with the effect that a killing spree on a bus has on the surviving passengers. In "Eureka" Naoki becomes mute and only communicates with his sister Kozue, just as Jimmy only communicates with Anne via the Internet in "Fragments". I can only rate "Fragments" by comparing it with "Eureka", and "Eureka" is the better film.

Click here to view the trailer.

Twilight: Eclipse (3½ Stars)

Not having read the books, I have to judge this film, the third in the Twilight saga, on its own merits. It compares unfavorably to the first two parts. Poorly paced, it spends a long time building up the suspense of a battle against an army of vampires, which is over within minutes. As a love story the Bella-Edward-Jacob triangle is lacking in feeling, because Kristen Stewart is unconvincing as a woman torn between two men. See "Pearl Harbor" for a more gripping story of a love triangle. The books might be good, but they don't translate well to the big screen.

The Runaways (4 Stars)

This is a difficult film to rate. Should I give it stars based on its entertainment value or its historical accuracy? The DVD box has the blurb "The story of the most influential rock band you've never heard of". And that's just it. I know the Runaways. I was a big fan of theirs in my teens. I followed their rise and fall closely. And I know enough to tell my readers that the film is biased. It tells the story from Joan Jett's perspective.

After Cherie Currie left the band in 1977 there was a struggle for leadership of the group. Kim Fowley put Lita Ford in charge of the group as she was, in his opinion, the most mature. Joan Jett gained most of the attention after Currie's departure, since she took over as lead singer, and claimed that she was the boss. There were a lot of arguments about musical styles that eventually led to the group breaking up. The disputes about the control of the group are left out of the film. The film is based on Jett's recollections, and she's rewritten history the way she thinks it should be remembered. The film also omits the drink and drug excesses of the group during their prolonged stays in England. I can imagine that Ford was clenching her fists in anger the first time she saw the film.

But on the positive side, the film is entertaining. Kristen Stewart is excellent as Joan Jett. If you compare photos of her and Jett in her earlier years it's difficult to tell them apart. Dakota Fanning was a good choice to play Cherie Currie, but she's lacking the provocative sexuality that I remember so well from Currie. Or maybe it was deliberately toned down. The Runaways were a controversial group in their time. They were only 16 when they first achieved fame, and they created a Lolita image to gain notoriety. The late 70's were the days of punk, and it was "acceptable" to be shocking. Today audiences are more prude.

The film is worth watching, but remember that it doesn't tell the full story.

Twilight: New Moon (3½ Stars)

The second film in the Twilight saga. To me it isn't as enthralling as the first film. The ghostly appearances of Edward seem unnatural, but I assume that it's what happens in the book. A good film, but not great.