{i}Once Upon A Time ... In Hollywood[/l]
(1st time)
+ QT does a great job of constructing his own little world within a specific era from the last century (
Jackie Brown, Hateful Eight, Reservoir Dogs), and he does so quite well.
+ QT also does a really good job of creating his own bizarre realities (
From Dusk Till Dawn, Kill Bill, Death Proof).
+ QT has also centered stories around characters that are interesting to watch (
Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs).
+ Finally, QT has had a field day making historical "what if?" films that are super violent and quite entertaining (
Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained).
This film really felt like he was making nods to some of his previous works, while throwing in an extra layer of nostalgia — 60's Hollywood story of an actor (and stunt double) that wants to get back to the heyday of his career. Like much of his other work, I'm not always sure where he is taking things, but I'm willingly along for the ride. He reminds us of our place in history with the intermittent presence of Sharon Tate. There are some great moments in the film for both of our main characters. Around the 105 minute mark, I'm really starting to wonder where all this is going, That's when the whole thing turns into one of this "what if?" scenarios, and I'm left feeling cheated out of 2+ hours of my time. The last action sequence is certainly entertaining, and classic QT gore. That's totally fine. Why give us 2 hours of unrelated story just to get us to the "what if?" that you clearly wanted to make the picture about? Why not make something closer to
IG, and even give us a Manson character (instead of just referencing him), then give us the big payoff of right time, wrong place situation for our characters resulting in the thwarting of Manson's schemes?
In writing this, I can see how QT continually worked in Manson "family" throughout, increasing his (our) focus on them as time went on, but overall it still feels like I started watching one film, but reached the ending of a different film that happened to overlap the first.
The Irishman 
(1st time)
This film is was even longer than the one above, but felt like a more cohesive story being told. Taking a lot of the facts with a grain of salt, given the source material, this was a story well told. The cast is terrific, the de-aging (and aging) CGI effects are remarkable, and have come a long way since
Tron: Legacy, and even
Rogue One. It's still a really long film, and will be awhile before I entertain the idea of a rewatch. What DID make this film more enjoyable was the 30-ish minute special (that Netflix suggested afterward) of DeNiro, Pesci, Pacino, and Scorsesse sitting around a table talking about the film. Still, the film loses at least :0.5stars: for overall length. I had to break it up into two viewings.
Marriage Story 
(1st time)
This is a well made, well acted film. As a husband, and parent, that has been through this type of ordeal — IN CALIFORNIA — this film occasionally felt deeply personal and infuriating. I was ready to feel some investment, to empathize with both sides through the process. Instead, this film drug me through the experience all over again. (personal side note: I did all of it sans attorneys, but had truly ugly turns of events in the courtroom and mediation.) Early on, there's this great moment of irony where ScarJo comments about having trouble getting to an emotional place while acting on stage, but can barely hold back the tears moments later. She portrays an actress that has trouble showing real emotion, but by the end of the scene she (ScarJo) is showing real emotion that her character is having. Perhaps not irony... I digress. This film is beautifully done, but it was very tough for me to sit through. By the end of it all, I wanted to shout at both of them for being foolish and not working it out. They clearly didn't want to be where they ended up, but were both too proud to show some humility and vulnerability and work together to sort things out.
(1st time)
Probably my favorite haunted house movie
we need to sort of play catch-up... thanks
I'm sure most, if not all films "based" on actual events will have some facts changed for one reason or another (dramatic license, etc), but in this case knowing the truth now takes away from the film for me.....