I'm not a diehard _Star Wars_ fan. I've seen all the movies, seen them all more than once even, and I have my opinions, but when I see the way people talk about _Star Wars_ online, I can't really find myself behaving the way that "true fans" or whathaveyou do. That being said, I think that the majority of the _Star Wars_ films have been pretty good. The notable exception to this, for me at least, is the prequels. And yes you can include the animated _Clone Wars_ movie that they made in that era too. These four movies, again, for me, are all bad. But even amongst them, there is still a ranking in my mind, and in that list, at the very bottom sits _Attack of the Clones_. Yes it is this movie which holds the title, of the very worst Star Wars theatrical release of all time.
_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

The collective fever that characterized the countdown to The Phantom Menace had long since dissipated by the time the first sequel prequel rolled off the ILM production line. Casual spectators, once stung, had decamped en masse to the newly discovered Middle-Earth, leaving George Lucas with just the few million hardcore fans - true believers who, with all the apprehension of parents at a nativity play, willed their defrocked hero back towards respectability.
There are certainly stretches in the patchy Attack Of The Clones when Lucas’ flat-packed dialogue struggles to keep the hecklers quiet – Anakin’s seduction of the former Queen has all the charm of a teenage lunge behind the bike-sheds and none of the feeling – but by the time climactic ‘reel six’ cranks into high gear the saga’s reputation as the godfather of modern sci-fi spectacle is more or less restored. Indeed, when Yoda finally unsheathes his mini-saber and kicks Sith ass the faithful can reliably be found standing on seats hollering as if the outcome was never in doubt. But, as the little Jedi might say, in doubt it was.
Where Episode V fairly zipped around the galaxy with all the breezy confidence of youth, unafraid to travel anywhere, even dark places, the second middle child of the saga is saddled with an altogether heavier burden from which it struggles to escape. Empire hits the ground running on ice planet Hoth, Clones however, has a truly cold start to contend with, aware perhaps that the movie’s most pressing task is to simply atone for the more egregious sins of Episode I. Thus, Jar Jar is quickly sidelined, the upgraded CGI Yoda gets a showcase and those damn Amidala-clones are killed off on page one. On Coruscant we also meet the grown-up ‘Ani’ - okay so he’s a whiny teenager but that’s still a vast improvement on the bowl-haired moppet the world was asked to root for in 1999.
Also more powerful than when last we met is Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan, the Jedi who was simply wan in Menace is a much more forceful presence as a full-bearded Master, struggling manfully with the endless exposition and even landing the odd punchline.
As with Empire, the protagonists are separated for the second act: while Obi-Wan is busy uncovering the conspiracy of the Clones, Anakin and Padme turn into colourless clones of Han and Leia in the romance stakes. There are pleasures (Obi-Wan squares off against Jango Fett) and pitfalls (Anakin and Padme have a picnic) in roughly equal measure throughout this flabby middle act but as with Episode I mostly you get a sense of drama that is willed into being, a necessary bridge to Episode III that requires Lucas to traverse territory – romance, politics – he is simply not comfortable in.
Matters improve greatly in the final forty minutes: Christopher Lee’s Count Dooku arrives to provide some much needed gravitas, C-3PO turns up to do his C-3PO thing and Padme puts on a skin-tight white leotard. Best of all, Lucas finally cuts loose. The classic trilogy bristled with seat-of-your-pants filmmaking, our heroes bouncing from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, and in the final section of Episode II – almost four hours into this prequel enterprise - Lucas at last cranks up to this Saturday morning serial pace: from the Tex Avery goofiness of the droid factory, to the Cecil B. De Mille grandeur of the gladiator arena, the action never lets up.
Also in the last reel we finally get to divine something of Lucas’ grand design, with ironic pay-offs for the fans still paying close attention - it is the witless Jar Jar who makes the creation of a clone army possible and Yoda who first leads what will become Stormtroopers into battle. In its own way, the end of Episode II is every bit as dark as the famous end of Episode V.
Unsurprisingly, the least anticipated movie of the saga suffered at the box office – Episode IV raked in more money at the US box office back in 1977 – and remains largely unloved by the fanbase for its emphasis on the central love story but despite no real improvement in dialogue or acting it functions perfectly well as an old fashioned romantic epic, complete with standalone set-pieces, rich political intrigue and a painters’ pallette. Indeed, so indebted is Lucas to David O. Selznick here, ultimately he may have been better served abandoning his own trilogy structure and boiling both Episodes I and II down to a 3-hour Gone With The Wind style classic – an approach that would have at least halved all that damn anticipation.
Verdict - The middle episode that can make a virtue of its bridging role is rare indeed. And where The Empire Strikes Back dazzled with vertiginous cliffhangers, Clones is more typical of the breed, necessary but not vital. However, as we make the awkward journey through Anakin’s teenage trials a sparkling digital print ensures there is still much to marvel at, not least a little green fella who is surprisingly quick on the draw.
3/5
- Colin Kennedy, Empire Magazine

I actually enjoy this animation series. Every one is really funny and has a good story.

"Manfred" the mammoth is heading north just as just about every other critter is migrating the other way to avoid the harsh winter. Unfortunately for him, he encounters the sleepy-head sloth "Sid" whom he rescues from a pair of rhinos, only to bitterly regret his kindness as this pesky mammal is soon getting on his nerves. Meantime, a pride of sabre-toothed tigers are plotting revenge on a human village whose hunting parties have taken their toll on their now dwindling numbers. Their target is a baby - but luckily it's mother manages to plunge it off a waterfall where, drenched, it is rescued by our two squabbling travellers. The tigers still haven't given up hope of securing their rather meagre lunch, and "Diego" - a sort of wily and menacing character is charged with luring the party to an ambush at "half peak" where their trap will be sprung.... This is all fairly predictable fayre, to be honest. You just know that the initial hostilities will all mellow and that teamwork, resilience and loyalty will prevail. It's not without it's humour though, and there are some fun animated action scenes that use well the surrounding snowy scenarios. Personally I found it better when it was just the beasties, the human angle was a little dull and didn't really add much. Some good scoring mixing modern with classical styles, a bit of fun ice skating and "Diego" did rather enjoyably remind me of "Scar" from the "Lion King" (1994). I saw it on my own at a cinema this morning which was a shame - it's a solid story with some reasonable characterisations and the animation is efficient rather than ground breaking. Certainly it is all just a bit too derivative, but 20 years on, it still has traction and I did rather enjoy it.

Passengers is a nicely crafted mix of science fiction, romance, and psychological drama. The first act stands out with its strong character buildup, focusing on the solitude and emotional struggles of a passenger unexpectedly awakened during a long space journey. The story transitions smoothly into the second act, where the connection between the characters adds warmth and charm to the film. The stunning visuals and detailed design of the Avalon create an immersive setting that keeps you engaged throughout.
The movie balances lighthearted and heartfelt moments with deeper, thought-provoking themes. The interactions between the characters, from their playful explorations of the ship to the challenges they face, feel genuine and compelling. The bartender, played by Michael Sheen, is a delightful addition, offering not only humor but also memorable wisdom that elevates the film’s themes of isolation and human connection. The conflicts and dilemmas presented add complexity to the narrative, making it more than just a typical space romance.
Passengers wraps up with a satisfying conclusion that ties its emotional and ethical threads together. It is visually stunning, emotionally impactful, and thought-provoking, making it a solid movie that entertains while leaving you with something to think about.

Crusoe and Girl Friday.
Pretty much reviled by professional critics, Passengers has overcome that to hold affection with a good portion of the sci-fi loving public. More safe sci-fi footings than anything remotely ground breaking, it ends up a a tidy romantic piece that's laced with pertinent questions involving man and his/her reactions to extraordinary scenario's.
Although the viewer is for the most part hankering for action to explode off the screen, it's only when - in the film's last quarter - you realise that it was actually working fine as a character study without the fireworks.
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence have bunches of charisma, in fact more than enough to carry the story through its more shaky elements. They in turn are aided by Michael Sheen who is perfectly cast as the Android (not Robot!) bartender Arthur.
The effects work is impressive and director Morten Tyldum stitches the set pieces together admirably, the highlight being a rather superb gravity loss sequence. While the sound mix is also to be applauded.
Newcomers should expect a Robinson Crusoe love story in space as opposed to a sci-fi actioner, though one with more cerebral strains than at first hinted, because then the pic delivers a good time and adds to what is turning out to be a rather great decade for sci-fi fans. 7/10

**A space-travel tale!**
I was going to watch it, but not expecting it to be a masterpiece. It was not, yet surprised to be a lot better film when it comes to todays film overcrowded with space themes. The entire story takes place on a spaceship. It's a space journey tale, when the mankind with 5,000 on-board heading for a new home planet, but one of them unexpectedly wakes up from his hibernation pod. It's supposed to wake him and everybody a few months before their destination, so now he's up nearly a century early, and what he plans to do is what the adventures covered in the rest of the film.
There's no connection to the 2008 film of the same name. Initially I thought it was like a live-action version of 'Wall-E'. Not entirely, only a few scenes and the main two characters remind Wall-E and Eva. It is also a limited cast film and I loved the simple screenplay, but strong enough to be one of the best in its kind. The actors were very good. The visuals were beautiful, a perfect film for the late night to watch alone peacefully.
From the Norwegian director of 'Headhunters' fame. This is not his Hollywood debut, but previously he had got an Oscar nomination for the film 'The Imitation Game'. The concept was like 'The Blue Lagoon' or kind of the space version of the Eden Garden tale. I had predicted a few scenes, those were too simple to do that. The real big thing came in the later part, especially when all the focus shifts to more than the initial narration. Scientifically, not everything believable, but cinematically, anything can be possible. So with a such concept, the film headed to the conclusion where a twist came into play. Entertainment is guaranteed. One of the year's best that should not be missed. Recommended!
8/10

A science-fiction movie that has dazzling scenery but also goes into some disturbing territory. Two people (Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt) are stranded on a malfunctioning starship over which they have little control. At first they can divert themselves with all the material wealth at their disposal. But when one commits a crime against the other, there is no society and no judicial system that can handle the offense. How can they work it out the ethics of punishment, penance, and rehabilitation between them?
The movie is marred by some scenes that look impressive but aren't scientifically accurate, particularly where gravity is concerned. Probably added by studio suits who wanted to wow the audience but didn't understand or care about the underlying science. But that's par for the course for most science fiction movies.

I thought the story was both interesting and believable on some levels. I have no doubt that an AI would eventually turn on a creator, especially since most creators don't think of artificial intelligence as anything other than a tool to use and dispose of. Be careful what you wish for, if you try to create a life through AI, don't be surprised if it has a mind of its own.⭐⭐⭐⭐

Isn't it strange, to create something that hates you?
Ex Machina is written and directed by Alex Garland. It stars Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Oscar Isaac and Sonoya Mizuno. Music is by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury and cinematography by Rob Hardy.
A young programmer is thrilled to be selected to participate in a ground-breaking experiment involving synthetic intelligence. He's to evaluate the human qualities of a highly advanced humanoid Artificial Intelligence known as Ava...
Your nutshell review is that it's a cautionary tale of science going too far, where the narrative thrust of a Turin Test becomes something far darker and troubling. This is a deliberately slow paced sci-fier, told out of a remote reinforced science institute populated by just one human and some A.I. creations. Enter Caleb (Gleeson), who doubles the human quotient and kicks starts what is a cunningly sexy, troubling and potent picture.
As we are drawn into this most fascinating world, we are requested to pose ourselves the deeper questions about being human, for better or worse. This is nothing new, this has been explored in many other sci-fi pictures, but the intensity of the set-up, the performance of the actors in this intimate surround, for sure engage the patiently interested.
The ending is plain daft, even irresponsible when one considers how much thought has gone into the story previously, but mostly this is a genre piece of considerable worth. 8/10

**Enjoyable, satisfying sci-fi**
Kinda smutty, kinda creepy, kinda evil, thoroughly enjoying.
OK, there's nothing mind shattering but still good fun and a nice pay off imho.
For those complaining it was predictable - if you want something you CANNOT ever predict go watch Predestination https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/206487-predestination
Something about it hit the right chords for me, modern, start up, big loud talker, sad lonely guy.... I've seen lots of those geeks turned CEO's and they don't know what they've become.
Actually more to be said about the Nathan character than the rest.
Definitely worth a watch if you like dark humour and sci-fi.

When you think you have seen everything about AI movies, Ex Machina arrives and gives a very nice perspective on the matter.
The movie goes quick, not many things happen but they are clever, very well thought. The story is more focused in the moral problems of the human main character rather than in the awe of the creation nor the existencial problem of the AI.
The cast is all great, from Vikander to Mizuno, Glee and great Oscar Isaac.
A real must to watch if you are into the topic.

Not as good as the first. Hardly any action at all. More comedy this time then anything. It was just an ok movie.

**Ant-Man and the Wasp takes everything that was wonderful about the first film and makes it even better.**
The Ant-Man franchise is so delightfully entertaining and lighthearted. Ant-Man and The Wasp takes all the fun and goofiness of the first movie and cranks it up a notch while adding the heartfelt plot of uniting a long-broken family. Paul Rudd’s lovable buffoon and Evangeline Lilly’s serious and driven heroine make a hilarious combination. I found myself laughing so hard that tears were in my eyes multiple times in this movie. Hannah John-Kamen’s Ghost is one of the better villains in the MCU due to a clearer and more sympathetic backstory. It’s easy to overlook how excellent the cast is in this movie, but it is a true all-star lineup with Laurence Fishburne, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Walton Goggins joining the already fantastic team from the first film. Ant-Man and the Wasp was a genius follow-up in the MCU timeline - after the severe and sobering Avengers: Infinity War, the franchise needed a laugh. Ant-Man is a fun series that doesn’t take itself too seriously while making the audience really care for its characters. I can’t wait to see what comes next!

As with the last one...Michael Peña is still the best part of the movie. He's the heart and soul of the Ant-Man movies. Unfortunately this time his stories aren't made with the same hysterical blunt finesse they were in the past. But that doesn't take away from his delivery.
And unfortunately that goes with the rest of the movie.
It's fun to watch and entertaining, and that is what matters, but the wind was sort of out of the sails here. Blame it on the script, the acting and direction were fine, they just didn't have a lot to work with.

A fine watch, but the novelty and freshness that the first film had has dissipated.
I enjoyed 'Ant-Man and the Wasp' just about enough. It's the MCU's weakest film, up until this point at least, so far. I rate the 2015 film quite a bit, it's entertaining and something different, but this sequel kinda felt flat to me for the majority. There's marginally enough there to like though.
Paul Rudd is satisfactory as the lead, while Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas and Michael Peña remain as solid as before. Michelle Pfeiffer and Laurence Fishburne are cool additions, but I can't say their characters are all that memorable - still passable, mind you.
The action is the film's biggest plus. The shrinking stuff always looks good, too. The humour is at a suitable level. Overall, it's an OK watch.

The Ant-man and Wasp is simple, silly movie with some redeeming features. It grew on me despite the silly acting and twisting plot that had a few unnecessary scenes. The special effects were pretty good, and I liked most of the combat scenes. They went a little overboard with CGI, which broke through my suspension of disbelief on a few occasions.
There were too many characters who played a weak villain. None of them felt like a real threat to any of the heroes. That gave the movie a very cartoonish feel.
What was weird that Ant-man's love interest Wasp, played by Evangeline Lilly, looked like she could have been his mother! Every time they showed affection for each other, like when they kissed, I recoils with a mental "ewww, this is gross!". Wasp was like a cougar hunting Paul Rudd.
Overall, the movie was enjoyable as long as you don't question its science, since it wouldn't work even if you believe their explanation of the quantum realm.
Final note, skip the credits and there is a scene in there to tie it into the rest of the MCU. The scene is entirely unecessary, and it ruins the actual ending of the movie. They should have left it out.

I have the impression that this movie is not a favorite of the hardcore Marvel community, which makes sense, as I am not part of that community and this is flat out my favorite entry into the Marvel line. In fact, it is the only Marvel film I have recommended my wife watch with me. (She hasn’t taken me up on it yet.)
I like the humor from the Scott Lang character and its self-deprecating tendency. Perhaps it would be over the top in a more serious entry like the infinity movies, but it works here. I really enjoy the chemistry between him and his daughter and I even appreciate the Luis character, which apparently separates me from the serious Marvel viewers. It is a fun ride and is not so much fueled by the violence of the other entries in the genre.
In fact, the only thing I didn’t like is the bittersweet way this movie is tied into the Infinity universe, regarding Scott (Ant-Man) and his daughter. And since that happens off in a different film altogether, it allows the story within this movie to stand on its own. If the reason you haven’t watched this is because you aren’t into the rest of the Marvel series or are worried about not getting it out of sequence, don’t worry. It stands on its own.

“Ant-Man and the Wasp” is a really weird Marvel movie.
Like its pint-sized superhero, the film doesn’t quite fit in with the typical MCU big screen canon and is a laid back yet thoroughly forgettable entry into the fatigued superhero genre. The story doesn’t try to tie too much together (save for a mid-credits scene), there’s not an over-dependence on rambunctious CGI effects, and the attempts at humor feel oddly forced (I’d estimate only 30% of the jokes land successfully). Despite the lame title characters and the ever-likeable Paul Rudd‘s offhand charisma, this film gives the impression that it’s an average C student trying desperately to overcome underdog status and achieve a place on the honor roll.
The best part of the film besides Rudd (he makes this one, just like every movie he’s cast in, impossible not to enjoy at least a little), are the special effects. Sure, they’re all computer generated, but they’re some of the most creative since 2016’s “Doctor Strange.” The worst part of the film is its contrived humor. It’s stiff, often cringe-worthy, and sticks out like a sore thumb as it grows increasingly desperate. The film’s multiple writers couldn’t have helped things, and the barrage of thoughtless, lazy jokes quickly wore me down.
Also lacking is suspense and a viable antagonist. There’s the oddly disturbing Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), a woman who is living in unbearable pain and appears to be a formidable foe for Ant-Man (Rudd), The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly), and Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). But then she suddenly finds her heart and the evil disappears. The same goes for Dr. Foster (Laurence Fishburne), a professor who also has a near immediate change of heart. The thin rescue mission premise of extracting Hank’s wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) from the Quantum Realm after being trapped there for the last 30 years also means there’s not too much else to root for.
The quantum rules change on a whim to fit the action sequences, with a sometimes shrinking and sometimes growing super suit. And cars. And buildings. The exposition dialogue is long-winded and repetitive, and the ill-advised “comic” relief from Michael Peña is not snarky enough to feel fresh or new (see “Thor: Ragnarok“).
This is a shallow, pointless film that becomes an exhausting bore.

For fans of the first one, which includes me, Ant-Man and the Wasp is more of what you like. More heisting. More car chases. More Giant Man. More of the three wombats. More humour. More mediocre villains. More romance between Scott and Hope. More family bonding. And of course, more quantum realm. It's fun. It's light hearted. It works.
That post credit scene though .... 😲

I did indeed enjoy this movie…somewhat. However I cannot say that I was overly impressed.
The story was okay. I would not expect a deep and thought provoking story from a super hero movie nor would I want it. It served as a decent enough vehicle for moving things forward.
Most of the actors did a good enough job of the role they were given which in some cases was pretty much mission impossible given some of the overly silly characters in the movie. In particular I got tired of Luis almost before the first scenes he was in had finished. He was just so silly that you started to wonder what age the target audience was. Jimmy Woo was not far behind.
I think this leads to my main gripe with the movie. I expected a super hero movie but what I got was a fairly lame comedy with super heroes in it. It was just too much comic elements in it for me. I could probably have liked it if the jokes were somewhat intelligent but, for me, they were not. They alternated between overly silly and stupid characters, slap-stick and simple fall-on-your ass jokes.
What about the bad guy? Well, first off, there was not really a distinct bad guy but a hole bunch of them. Unfortunately none of them had any real bad guy charisma. I assume that Sonny was supposed to be the main bad guy and he certainly had enough evil lunatic air about him to fit that but again…too silly. Then we have the lame Jimmy Woo who was just annoying. The Ghost was probably the best one but then she was not really a bad guy was she?
I did like most of the action and the special effects though. The playing around with shrinking and returning to normal size, or greater, was both cool and funny. This shrinking business is of course a difficult theme to work with from a science and logic point of view. For instance, if you shrink a car to the size of a toy car it still weighs like a full size one and you cannot just pick it up. And what about the lab popping up and down all the time? Why weren’t everything shaken to bits inside when they started to run around with it? And don’t get me started about electricity and plumbing. But then, in this kind of movie I would say just just have to turn off that part of your brain. It made for some cool scenes after all.
I also did like that the story was more of a down to Earth story. No overall galactic plot, no snapping of fingers to make…well you know what. Okay, there was the post credit scenes which was a bit of an annoying tie in. Perhaps best of all though, I could not really feel much SJW or other form of politically correct preaching being showed down my throat. Today that is a great plus for any movie.
So, to sum up, I did enjoy it but it was not great and I was indeed a little bit disappointed at the end.

Actually quite good! It's like a less-weird, but more fun version of a Deadpool - in the sense that it is both filled with action but also with fun acting.
I recommend it for a Saturday evening. It is quite wholesome.

It's fun to see big stuff get real little and little stuff get real big, but _Ant-Man and the Wasp_ suffers the same problems of its predecessor, except this time with an added issue, one that effects many movies (and even more TV shows), the problem of "The entire movie didn't have to happen if people would just have had normal human conversations with one another".
_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._

Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood is a signature Tarantino film, packed with big names, stylish direction, and a deep love for old-school Hollywood. The plot? Well, it’s more of a wandering journey than a structured story. Things happen, characters interact, but there isn’t much tying it all together in a traditional sense. That’s expected from Tarantino, he’s more about moments than narratives. The slow-paced intro sets the tone, but it doesn’t really pick up in a way that makes you feel a sense of urgency.
The directing is classic Tarantino, with his trademark long conversations, sudden bursts of energy, and, of course, his obsession with feet. The cinematography nails the late '60s aesthetic, from the lighting to the vintage sets, making Hollywood feel alive in every frame. Camera work is bold, sometimes chaotic, but never dull. Acting-wise, DiCaprio and Pitt carry the film effortlessly, delivering performances that feel natural and engaging. The sheer number of recognizable faces adds to the spectacle, making every scene feel like a who’s who of Hollywood.
The script has its moments, sharp dialogue and some solid character work, but the comedy often feels forced rather than organic. The soundtrack, however, is one of the film’s strongest elements, blending iconic tracks that perfectly fit the era and mood. Overall, it’s an experience more than a story, and while the pacing drags at times, the world it builds is captivating enough to keep you watching. I wouldn’t call it a masterpiece, but it’s an enjoyable ride if you’re in the mood for something that values atmosphere and performances over a tightly woven plot.

This film didn't quite hit the mark for me. It felt excessively long, dragging on without captivating my interest, ultimately leaving me feeling bored and disconnected. While many may have found it fantastic, I struggled to connect with the storyline and found it to be disjointed and lacking coherence.
While the film received praise from critics and fans alike, my personal preference leans towards action-packed movies that keep me engaged and entertained. I value excitement and thrill in a film, seeking an immersive experience that keeps me on the edge of my seat, rather than one that relies heavily on drawn-out dialogue that fails to hold my attention.

In theory, this ought to have been excellent. Di Caprio and Pitt together with Tarantino and a sprinkling of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie). Well, eventually - after maybe 2 hours, or so, we get something akin to what I was expecting. The long, ponderous road to this conclusion has been described by some as a sort of "love story". Hmmm, I think they are being kind. There is a bond between the two gents but it isn't really worthy of comment. I don't see how it significantly differs from the bond any partnership might form after many years of working together. Boo hoo, "Dalton" (Di Caprio) is a bit of an alcoholic who has become typecast and doesn't get the parts he used to. Well how many other actors have ended up in the same boat? "Booth" Pitt's character has very little to get his teeth into; except perhaps at the end and if you do expect anything substantial from Sharon Tate, then think again. Sorry, but this is a seriously long and over-rated swipe at too many late 60's Hollywood stereotypes for me.

This felt disjointed and scattershot for most of the film's runtime, but I enjoyed the way the storytelling hopped around. There was something building and embarrassingly, I caught on awfully late. The three main actors were great. Margot Robbie is just beautiful and likeable. Brad Pitt is cool, tough and caring. DiCaprio's portrayal of the fictional Rick Dalton is the MVP, though. He's such a multi-dimensional character and it would be fun to see more of his Dalton's behind-the scenes antics.
The revisionist history tale is fine, but it's always about the dialog with Tarantino. It was fun to just follow these characters around.

“Is everybody okay?” “Well... the fuckin' hippies aren't. That's for goddamn sure.”
I have watched this film in the cinema when it first came out in 2019, but didn’t think it was that great. After my second watch, 4 years and a good 550 other movies later, I liked it much better.
Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood is essentially a love letter to cinema, a fairytale filled with jokes and references and a deep supporting cast. The film spends most of the time hanging out with its characters; there are plenty of scenes were we can enjoy DiCaprio giving a hell of a performance, or Pitt being effortlessly cool. The fairytale ends in a hilarious climax—an unexpected twist in appropriate Tarantino style—and they lived happily ever after.
9,0/10

OK, I'm giving it 10 stars, not because it's a great film and not because it's one of QT's best films... but because compared to everything else out there today it is a Masterpiece.
However, unfortunately, anyone that has seen all of QT's films, the ending is spoiled from the start purely on the basis that we understand how he treats history.
And, unfortunately, for SOME people it is a very slow burner, but one with absolutely fantastic acting and directing. It's a slow burner that is a brilliant period piece, and it is a slow burner that is almost a love letter to classic Hollywood, so though it takes nearly forever for any real pay off, its a fine film to actually watch and one that maintains a quality of entertainment and leaves little clues peppered throughout of the coming payoff.
And the clues are important as they are, essentially, little promises that the film is making for the finale.
The finally, however is so ultra-violent, so over-the-top that it's absolutely hysterical.
It's not his best film, but its certainly loyal to his others, gone however is the quick witted and quotable dialogue that marked his earlier films, but it is traded off for a sleek professionalism of a seasoned director.

An entertaining movie filled with fantastic performances and gripping dialogue. Although, this movie is slightly directionless as I was 2/3rds of the way through the movie and had no idea where it was trying to take me. Despite that fact, I still was engaged and had a great time watching. The third act is so off the walls and crazy that it makes the entire slow burn of the film worth every second.
**Score:** _88%_
**Verdict:** _Excellent_