Once Upon a Time In Hollywood
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Got more questions about news letters?
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
I love "music" films and I love Anton Yelchin so I was really looking forward to this. Overall, I did really enjoy the film. But I do have some nitpicks.
I know the story is really about Sam (Billy Crudup) and his journey. But I would have liked to see more insight on his son Josh. Especially since the twist reveals him to be the shooter. The movie never really gives us that sense that he is a kid about to go off his rails. If the movie couldn't have given us that insight, then I think it would have been better just making him one of the victim's of some nameless shooter.
Secondly, Selena Gomez was the weakest actor of the bunch. I thought her first scene was good, but then when we see her again she was just so over dramatic to me.
I didn't totally buy Quentin (Anton Yelchin) being so invested in Sam to the point where he would show up at his home the next day with coffee and doughnuts already wanting to work together. Based off one song he heard.
I also didn't care for William H Macy inserting himself into his own film.
The movie makes up for it though with really good music and a shining performance by Billy Crudup. It's worth a see.
It was a pretty decent movie. Do I think it could have been better? Yes.
Let's start out with the problems. Jeff Bridges. He was doing something weird with his lip. It was like he was pushing it out to make himself sound older if that makes sense. It was distracting and weird. I didn't feel like Brenton, Cameron or Odeya were particularly strong actors. They weren't bad, but a little flat. I'm sure with time they will grow. And although I didn't totally mind them aging up the characters, I really did not feel like the romance subplot was necessary. Also, I'm not sure I buy Katie Holmes or Alexander Skarsgard as parents of an 18 year old boy. Another thing I felt that did not make sense was the whole sled thing. I mean, its the first memory that Jonas recieves, but at the end (when he's in Elsewhere) he finds the same sled and the same house with carolers. Was that merely a coincidence or The Giver know about the place? Like, I don't think he has abilities to show him the present or future, so it just seemed weird and too contrived that he just so happens to arrive at the same place.
But I really felt like it got the beautiful and emotional side of what life is right.
As for book to movie changes, the only really glaring were ages and romance subplot. All other changes were really minor and not bothersome.
It was quite a cute movie even though it was really really predictable. But I thought Anna Faris and Chris Evans had good chemistry together. And I loved all the scenes where Ally (Anna) kept bumping into Disgusting Donald (real life husband Chris Pratt). But I dont get the whole problem with her being viewed as some slut for having 20 partners. I mean, when you average it out, shes had 2 partners a year....doesn't seem THAT crazy.
This was absolute crap.
I mean, I realized going into this that the science behind this was not going to be factual in anyway, but I was willing to suspend my disbelief because the premise looked interesting from trailer. I had decided it would be a fun take on a "what if" situation.
But this movie was just so ridiculous from start to finish. So this guy you barely know keeps grabbing onto your arm because he wants you to deliver some mysterious briefcase. Why the F did you not scream or something? I mean 3 times, she tries to walk away and he grabs her. Scream and grab attention to yourself, kick him, I don't care. Also, when the drugs finally kick in and her powers start developing, that whole scene was pretty laughable to watch. I love Scarlett and I do think she's a great actress...but not one of her better acting moments. I also really take issue that she seemed to care for her friends (by giving them health advice) and obviously was hunting down the other drug packets to save people but then didnt seem to care about the giant massive pile-up she just created. What about all of those people's lives? Also, the the "romance" sub-plot was just not needed. The cop made a completely valid point when he said "Why do you need me?". She honestly really didn't. But instead the movie decided to give them an awkward kiss where she then explained that she needed a "reminder". I know he later on in the movie helped kept the bad guys out while she focused on some experiment....but couldnt they have come up with a better idea to keep him around? And also, why did the bad guy take so effing long to shoot her. Here she was sitting in this chair in front of him (her mind was time-traveling for like 5 minutes as she sees the Victorian age, native americans, dinosaurs and ape-humans)...like he could have shot her so quickly....but we get the most contrived cinema cliche...where the bad guy has to slowly walk up behind her and slowly raise up the gun, struggle to pull the trigger. *Rolls eyes* . Then we he finally decides to get trigger happy, she has already disappeared into a puff of smoke. No really, she just disappears.
And I feel like, its a shame really. Because if this movie does bad the studios will probably blame that it was a female lead for its downfall. Which is BS. The fact it had a crappy script is the real answer. The CGI was just ok, as well. Seen worse, but have seen better.
Although the film starts off quite slow, I thought it ended up being a very interesting portrayal of war, and what you would do survive. I didn't care for the voices that Daisy heard in her head. It was kind of distracting. I didn't care much for the incest either. I would eyeroll anytime she dreamed about him shirtless too.
I mean, the film certainly wasn't the best thing ever, but I thought it really got interesting once the war broke out, and they got separated.