Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Is An Overrated Piece of Shit

I’m a Tarantino fan. I thought all of the actors were excellent. It’s a beautiful looking film.

But still I hated, hated, hated this movie and I have no idea why anyone would like it.

Have you seen Marriage Story? That will give you a barometer on overrated.

There are so many scenes that add nothing to the story or advance the plot and could easily be edited out.

And so many women's bare feet Tarantino is becoming a sick fuck.

It didn't work for me. Even the soundtrack was a disappointment.

The cinematography, sets, and wardrobe were excellent, but it is a little slow in spots. Loved seeing the Manson gang get violently killed/maimed, if only...

Why did we have to hear so many radio advertisements?

The killer pit bull .... so fucking stupid.

Did we see the Pitt character climb onto the roof to fix the antenna just so that we could ogle Brad’s naked torso? If not, what was the purpose of that scene?

The Leo character keeps a fully charged flame thrower in the house ... so fucking stupid

Why was Sharon Tate miming her fight motions while sitting in a theater watching her fight scene on the screen? Is she retarded? Would a normal person do something like that?

Etc.

And they need to stop trying to make Margot Robbie happen.

Definitely NOT a movie that appeals to the DL sensibility.

"I personally think this is the worst film Quentin Tarantino has ever made...The majority of the scenes in this film didn't have a driving force behind them."

It creeps me out that, right now, Quentin is probably jacking off to the bare feet in this movie. Including Leo's.

Honey R7, Margot Robbie has happened.

R6, are you really that drearily literal minded?

Best film of the year. Have watched it three times now. Perfect film.

R12 you've seen other movies, right?

His revisionist ending should've been Roman Polanski getting violently murdered, not the hapless cult members.

The vapid "leading lady" with no lines is a depressing state of affairs...

Hapless? Talk about revisionist. They murdered 5 people.

R11 Did you work on this shitty movie? Because you seem really upset at the criticism.

No, R17, I just find some of the criticism here stupid. I found the movie really long and drawn out, with scenes that were far too long, but the established atmosphere, the lead performances and, in general, the script made it a decent Tarantino film, not great, but not as bad some of the later films. He builds scenes well, but doesn't know when to cut them.

I hated the ending. What the hell? Was a total letdown. Quentin tries to be accurate with his times and dates. But then totally changes the murders.

R6 I actually thought the scene where Sharon Tate was watching herself doing the martial arts motions and mimicking them in the theater was kind of endearing. I thought it conveyed how young Sharon must have felt as a starlet on the verge of becoming something big, watching herself on the big screen for probably the first time, so proud of those moves she learned and still remembering every one.

So, R19, you would have preferred to see the Manson family slaughter everyone?

I totally agree and I love certain Tarantino films. The character of Sharon Tate largely consisted of Margot Robbie doing over the top dance moves. I was in pain watching this film in the cinema. Certain narrative tools were either completely dropped or used at odd moments. I hated the ending. I found it to be unfunny and nonsensical. Some scenes definitely went on longer than needed. I must admit, it did have some great moments but overall was a mess. Great cinematography though.

Ha ha thank god for this post I was wondering if I was the only one. Saw it 4 days ago, and it immediately became my least favourite Tarantino film and the only one I've ever genuinely disliked (Jackie Brown was the best, imo). As someone else said the acting and cinematography were excellent but I just found this not only self-indulgent but weirdly lazy in its attempts to be provocative. Having Brad Pitt's character be a wide murdered (never confirmed) and also set up as almost a hero type just felt like it was calculated to get a rise out of a certain demographic. The canine character was also stupid, as someone else already mentioned.

I love the way this movie looks. Like, REALLY love it. But the bare feet, the dog, the lazy attempts to be edgy just felt like ehhhhhhh

[quote]I just find some of the criticism here stupid.

Some here feel the same way about your praises. To each their own. It’s not that serious.

[quote]The character of Sharon Tate largely consisted of Margot Robbie doing over the top dance moves. I was in pain watching this film in the cinema.

She was useless (as usual).

R11, are you saying that all the moments described on R6 are symbolic? Or what? And how did Tarantino communicate to the audience that we aren’t to interpret what we see in this film literally? Genuinely curious to get your response.

lol "wife murderer" not "wide murdered," sorry...

What was the value of the scene in which Sharon buys the old book? Was that supposed to illuminate something about that character?

R12 With fifteen minutes of nothing but cars driving various streets, you've spent almost nine hours of your life watching "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"?!

No, it isn't that serious, R24. But there are more legitimate things to criticize than Robbie being inadequate for stardom and questioning why she would mime her fight moves. The point about Pitt supposedly murdering his wife was far more of a problem than Pitt taking his shirt off (it was a good way of having his character and Manson zero in on each other), or Pitt having a killer pit bull.

[quote]So, [R19], you would have preferred to see the Manson family slaughter everyone?

Not R19 but I loved every frame until the ending, he should have ended it with the family walking up the drive way. We know what happened, we didn't need to see it. The new ending was offensive to the victims. Other than that, great film.

I agree with you OP. I thought the movie was so bad that I didn’t even stay for the end of it. I was hoping both Leonardo and Brad with Diane ugly death in the movie to at least cheer me up. Clearly that happy ending didn’t happen. No question that people have different opinions on this movie. I just didn’t like it.

Waze should narrate the audio commentary.

I hated this movie but I didn’t really mind the revisionist history of the ending.

But I did hate the final scene: “Oh, you just fought off killers and ended up murdering them in your home? Come on over for drinks!” So stupid.

Offensive to the victims, R31?! I don't see the logic of that at all. He saved them in the movie from the slaughter they received in real life. If you're going to have fantasy, who doesn't want to see the Mansons get it? The family walking up the driveway as an ending would have been very unsatisfying.

R19 and other dumb fucks like her, the film title starts with "Once Upon a Time"...it's a fucking fairy tale!

I have to agree with R36. It's why I said why are you all so literal minded?

R28 Is that the scene were she buys "Tess of the D'Urbervilles"? I think it might have been because Tate was originally going to play the lead in "Tess" (Polanski movie) but was obviously murdered before that could ever happen. I think it was a nod to that and how Tate was going to take on a challenging, leading role that may have made her a bigger star.

I like his movies. So epic. But I never need to see them twice.

It was a perfect film

The point of Pitt beating the shit out of Lee, the blond Manson dude, and his climb up to the rooftop was to show how agile and quick he was so the finale would be believable.

[quote]Offensive to the victims, [R31]?! I don't see the logic of that at all. He saved them in the movie from the slaughter they received in real life. If you're going to have fantasy, who doesn't want to see the Mansons get it? The family walking up the driveway as an ending would have been very unsatisfying.

Because they were real people who suffered, and were terrorized, and had real family who mourned them, some still today. You want a fantasy, use made up characters. And yeah the family walking up the driveway would have left everyone with the sense of dread because we know what was going to happen and we couldn't do anything about it unlike the cartoon characters Tarrantino had saving the day.

Leo with a blowtorch?

R42, the entire tone of the film was, like every Tarantino movie, not stuck in dreary realism but fantasy, and epic storytelling. Seeing real people suffering cruelly at the hands of such obvious villains is not only not Tarantino's style, it would have been a fucking drag after 3 hours of comedy and over-the-top blustering. Revenge is always the order of the day in his movies. That's the spirit of this and all Tarantino movies, like them or not.

R40 how so?

R37 I had no problem with the Manson family members being murder. The issue for me was their deaths. I personally found it unfunny. The flame thrower scene was eye roll inducing. Also as another poster pointed out the "Oh, three people have just been murdered? Well then, come in for some cocktails!" was just so ridiculous. Instead they could have been shocked and concerned for Leo's character and invited him in, being concerned neighbours.

The blowtorch was a prop from the character's other movie and he kept it. What's the problem? Movies (especially movies like this) do have to have a certain element of being over the top. That's one of the reasons we go to movies, or at least Tarantino's.

r21 The murders happened and the perps were punished.. Roman Polanski is a pedophile who never received punishment.

And what does Polanski have to do in this narrative of 1969, R48? He wasn't even in the country at the time. We get you hate him but the idea that he should be murder victim of the Mansons is beyond stupid.

Unlike period movies like Boogie Nights and Dazed and Confused, the characters and the setting in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood were not believable.

You can see every second of Leo and Brad's acting. They never transcend their own image and fame.

R42 That can't be the rule. There can't be a prohibition on alternative history in movies.

R41 you reminded me of another scene (the Bruce Lee scene) that to me almost felt cynically calculated to get a rise out of the PC crowd and lead to long thinkpieces about it.

Rooftop scene didn't bother me, it was establishing the BP character as physically capable and old-fashioned manly.

Exactly, R51.

R50 I feel like that about DiCaprio in almost everything he's in. He's my #1 overrated actor, esp. now hambone Spacey is out.

OP, you basically are talking about the essence of Quentin Tarantino. A hacky director who makes good entertainment but he rarely rises above the source material he pays homage to.

Pitt was perfect.

I hardly would call Tarantino a hack. "Jackie Brown" and "Pulp Fiction" were not made by a hack.

R55 Those are my favourites of his as well. I only mentioned Jackie Brown, above. And I did like Brad Pitt in this, a case of good acting and perfect casting.

"Jackie Brown" is my favorite of his. An adaptation, no less, and a faithful one to the excellent source material.

r48 do you think this movie is based on facts? It is historical fiction. Child rapist Polanski could be anywhere.

r49 do you think this movie is based on facts? It is historical fiction. Child rapist Polanski could be anywhere.

The sequence with Leo filming that villain role in the western series was just interminable. So boring, so going nowhere at all. It really dragged the movie down for me. Was Leo supposed to have a stutter when not in character?

I actually liked Margot Robbie the best in this (besides Brad Pitt). She captured a very new-to-stardom energy that set up a wide-eyed innocence that contrasted well with her dark ending in real life.

I liked the movie and thought the fairy tale ending was satisfying. I haven't seen many of his movies though.

Oh, brother, R59. He wasn't even a character in this movie. Why don't you write your own movie and kill him off instead of forcing your fantasy onto Tarantino's movie?

R62 Actually he was. Wasn't there a scene with him and Tate in the car?

Roman Polanski was played by Rafał Zawierucha, R62. So...wrong.

Polanski was in 2 scenes with Tate, accompanying her and he had no lines. He was seen, briefly. That's not a character, that's an extra.

You seem like one of those people who can’t admit when they’re wrong, R65. Are you Donald J. Trump, by any chance?

Extras do not receive billing on Wikipedia pages.

I'm saying he had nothing to do in the movie, in fact was barely in it. So why would he be killed off in the movie?

No, that’s not what you’re saying. First, you said he wasn’t in the film at all. Then, when it was pointed out to you that an actor portrayed him in several scenes, it didn’t suddenly count because he didn’t have any lines and that he was just an “extra.” Now you’re saying that because he was barely in the film, he couldn’t be a part of the revisionist ending.

You’re a mess and a goalpost mover.

R68, I assure you he was NOT in several scenes. In fact, Tarantino didn't want to deal with the political fallout of having Polanski as a character.

I should have said he was barely a character, because I certainly remember him in the movie. But it's a fact that he's barely in it.

R69 is on the spectrum.

R70 is on the cunt spectrum.

I hated this movie.. Leo DiCaprio is an overrated piece of shit. His accent was an embarrassment. It's a film for people who are really into celebrities but think their interest is more highbrow than the TMZ crowd (it's not).

Sorry, it doesn’t work as a fantasy or a fairy tale.

Why combine fictional characters with real people?

Who’s fantasy? Certainly not mine. Tarantino’s fantasy? If so, was he supposed to be an unseen character or something?

I had forgotten about that Bruce Lee scene. Oy.

All that and Lena Dunham, too! Bring on the Oscars!!!

Was it good for you?

It's pretty funny to me that gay guys on Datalounge would have a problem with Brad Pitt taking his shirt off.

It just kills me that Brad is 56.

I loved it!

Brad Pitt is for chicks.

This is a brilliant film. You are all so pedestrian.

Right, R78--like you would turn down Pitt's dick in your ass.

R79 such a douche

R80 not all of are bottom whores

Some people, like you, R82, don't qualify.

Sharon was the force of life in the movie, Leo and Brad were just kind of...existing.

R83 as if Brad Pitt could maintain an erection in your well-worn sphincter

Was anyone supposed to actually care about the plight of Rick Dalton? I’m a washed-up TV star who goes home to a house in the Hollywood Hills every night and have a paid companion/driver?

That's an interesting theory, R84. Considering she was deliberately made a third wheel by Tarantino because he was so intimidated by her victim iconography and was much more interested in the two men, I guess that's compliment to Robbie.

I was very disappointed to be honest. Would never see it again

Unfuckable R85, pretending he's a top AND too good for Brad Pitt. Hilarious.

R89 and by the way, that 2020 surcharge tax for shredding the ropey brisket formerly known as your colon lining is totally out of line, kween.

And yours, R90, is crawling with spiders, and utterly untouched, never to see the light of day. You have the anus of Nosferatu, and the face to match.

There are a lot of bare women's feet, most gratuitous the switch to Rick's wife's fee t strolling out of the airport. Sharon Tate's and the hippie chick you could wank it as "Ok, establishing shot." or "She's a free spirited hippie." What about the gratuitous shots of women's asses? If you've been on set you know you have to set the shot. The woman's half bare ass (and nothing else of her) didn't just happen didn't just happen to land right foreground of the frame. Cliff's wife in flashback - there's her hass on her last two line's of dialogue. ALL THE TIME the hippie chick's ass was hanging out of the car whlie her front end was leaning in, including the shot where it was framed front and center. And most gratuitously, an upskirt of Rick's co-star (later his wife) as the narrator told us how he was doing in Italy. The camera was low just so it could go up her micro mini as she and he approached the reporters.

I usually find Tarantino problematic but always laugh at some point. Here, nothing. He needs to retire the flamethrower. It's coming off like a Disney animation that's been drawn over a previous animation.

I thought this movie had a few good moments, but overall it was a big wank by Tarentino showing off so everyone will see how brilliant he is.

Did anyone see the re-released version with 4 extra scenes?? What the hell was that about???

^sorry about multiple typos, but still, point stands.

Actually, R92, Tarantino is not at all exploitational of women, except their feet. Can you think of one nude scene of a woman in any of his movies? There was a little bit of Bridget Fonda's butt in JACKIE BROWN. I can't think of any other scene of female nudity. He's shown more male flesh than female. (I did skip the western with Jennifer Jason Leigh.)

And if he could get away with it in any movie, it would be this one. But was there any actual female nudity in this? Maybe the Playboy mansion scene--maybe? Again, warranted, if even. But I don't recall any.

The fact is that if the Manson cult members AND Roman Polanski were murdered, it would've made for a more satisfying ending.

That's for TV, R93. He was offered the opportunity to show the entire movie and extra scenes as a miniseries.

I wanted to love this film, but ended up only liking it. I think. I'll probably watch it again.

[quote]All style over substance and totally in love with itself.

All movies that revolve around acting / directing / filming / Hollywood are like this.

"Substance" can be overrated. Witness A MARRIAGE STORY.

OP is literally agreeing with himself numerous times on this thread.

I wasn't alive in '69, but as depicted, I think I'd gladly go back to that time. Life seems much less complicated.

I loved it.

R101 OMG! "Literally?" You must have tech-savvy tools we're unaware of...

Yeah, how can you see that, R104? That said, multiple posts on one's own thread is completely legit, in my book.

R105 it's a multiple post world you're living in

R105 and I'd love to read that book!

It was excellent, not as great as DJango but better than Hateful. It beautifully evoked a mythical past, in this case LA/Hollywood in the late 1960s. Didn’t you both want to be there, when things were simpler, but also realise that it wasn’t actually like that.? All of the technical aspects of the film, cinematography, wardrobe, casting were exceptionally well done.

The story itself was not quite as spellbinding as the style and atmospherics. It dragged a little in the middle, including where Brad visits Spahn Ranch. And the ending was not quite satisfying. But overall I’d say 4.5 out of 5.

I would agree with you, R108, except it didn't evoke a mythical past. It evoked a very real past, in a Hollywood way of rewriting history in a romanticized way.

The only dramatic tension came from viewers' knowledge of the real events, and how it would be shown. Pulling the rug out with his 'if only' contrived ending proved an underwhelming finale. It was a cinematic Turducken with a hollow interior.

The best thing about this movie was the sound of the dog food being squished out of the can.

[quote] Did anyone see the re-released version with 4 extra scenes?? What the hell was that about???

Shameless money grab, what else?!

Leo is the same in pretty much all his post-Titanic roles, and at times I find his overacting and forced 'intensity' downright cringeworthy. How does he keep on getting great reviews and awards/nominations for almost every film he does? There must be money (or other favors) exchanging hands between him and the critics.

I liked the IDEA of the film and its setting and commitment to detail but the story was the usual Tarantino mess.

It would have been better if Tarantino would fucking have a co-writer to help him with structure, then do it as a 10 episode TV thing. TONS of interesting material to be explored....like, why not actually have them go after fucking Manson instead of just killing his flunkies (who hadn't actually killed anyone yet so why did they deserve such a grisly fate when they themselves were stupid brainwashed drug addicts?) A revisionist history of 1969 Hollywood and the Manson Murders would have been a very compelling show.

Thanks, R114!

Ryan, you're the KING of Messy Scripting...

I liked a lot of the film, including the performances, and they nailed the time period but it's way too long. The whole Italian spaghetti western sequence could have been cut down to 2 minutes. Tarantino's last really good film was Inglorious Basterds in 2009. I think the death of his long time editor, Sally Menke, in 2010 is a huge part of the problem. Django is an okay film but The Hateful Eight is interminable and almost unwatchable. It's the only Tarantino film that I want to watch again.

*don't want to watch again.

Forcing Margaret Qualley to put her barefeet front and center on the windshield appearing larger than her head after she told Tarantino she would rather not, and while adding sticky, squeaky sound effects is unforgivable.

Where is the proof that she so strenuously objectified to her feet being objectified? I would like to see that.

*strenuously objected to her feet

I think it's great. It was such a nice fantasy that the Manson Gang was the ones to die horrible deaths. Thanks Quentin for that fantasy.

R120 her interview with Jimmy Kimmel in the clip R9

Actually, R95, the ass shots were gratuitous and do constitute exploitation of women. It's not just feet. Ass shots in close-up where unneeded count, particularly the one of Rick's wife and the one of Cliff's wife.

Spare us R124, you wouldn't be saying that if it was male ass.

Exactly, R125. What bullshit.

I loved how it conjured the late 60s Hollywood scene, all those TV shows I watched as a kid and read about in what were then called "movie magazines." Rick Dalton had a real Pete Duel vibe for me. And then the whole friendship between Rick and Cliff, supposedly inspired by Burt Reynolds and Hal Needham. It all felt right. Great period details, like the Vitalis on Rick's makeup table, like my dad used to wear in the 60s.

One teeny tiny detail bugged me because it seemed off, and that was the Steve McQueen character saying "she followed him over to the UK." People then didn't really say "the UK" the way they do now. They would have just said England. It's my little peeve and I'm stickin to it.

Mary!

Loved the whole thing until he shit all over the audience’s head with that ending.

No, Qualley did not object to her feet being shown due to objectification. She objected because she has very big, funny looking feet.

I actually didn’t really notice the feet thing until Sharon puts her feet up at the movies and that made me laugh — it was Tarantino messing with us about his fixation.

I’m sick to death of him wallowing in his sadism though, and always looking for some pious cloak to put over it. Like it’s ok to torture nazis because jews. It’s good to torture slave owners because black people. Here it was ok to torture the Manson kids because Sharon.

After Jackie Brown his movies went right down the toilet thanks to that shit. I had hopes this one was going to be a return to form. Nope.

Focusing a camera on a woman's body part she is embarrassed by is objectification. She said to Kimmel he focused more on them the more she protested, and would have been better off not saying anything.

God what a fucking sadistic creep.

Oh, get off it, you fucking Marys.

how dare you criticize little bitch boy's R133 favorite overrated director!

He makes garbage but bitch bois love to lick his asshole and proclaim him a genius.

He is the premier director for the incel crowd.

[quote]Focusing a camera on a woman's body part she is embarrassed by is objectification.

Letting someone objectify your body, film it and pay you money makes you a bitchy whore complaining of how bad the fuck was months later.

R136 Okay...

R134 and R135, I think you need to wash the sand out of your vadges. It's making your cunts crusty and you cranky.

“Favorite director of all time!” -Incels

That would be Eli Roth, R139.

Wait, there was a surprise twist at the end? I should have kept watching. Whoops!

[quote]Focusing a camera on a woman's body part she is embarrassed by is objectification.

How you define objectification =/= why she said she was uncomfortable. You're spinning it to sound like she felt he was doing something objectively bad to her. She didn't say that. She said it was more about her self-consciousness because she had, in her words, dancer's feet (aka fucked up feet), and one assumes she's also self-conscious of their size (I saw the movie, they are huge, lol).

This reminds me of the rush to crucify Tarantino over the Thurman driving accident. She said she didn't want to drive the car herself in a sequence but he prevailed on her because it was virtually straight driving. Then, like the complete feeb she obviously is, she didn't turn the wheel even an inch when there was a gentle curve, drove off the road, and crashed into a tree. People watching it could not believe their eyes. That either means a) she is pathetic or b) she was being as passive-aggressive as they come. Sorry, but I'm with Tarantino on that one too.

And I'm no Tarantino stan, but he's not always wrong, all the time. Sorry.

I can defend him for the foot thing because he has ever right as a director to shoot a scene from a certain angle. And it was her foot, not her ass, her genitals or her breasts. This is hardly objectification of the actress. Putting her feet up on the dashboard is also very appropriate for that character (as well as satisfying Tarantino's supposed foot fetish).

I do, however, see him as manipulative and reckless regarding his handling f Thurman. That's more of a stunt, driving a cars at high speed, and she had a right to be uncomfortable. If she didn't so it right--she's not her own stunt woman, after all. He should have used hers for that.

* If she didn't do it just right

Waiting right ow fir the mailman to deliver my Steelbook.

Aggressive PR to sell us shit

I collect steelbooks, even have a bunch signed by the stars, no PR here, actually waiting for the mailman

I don't know, r143 -- as far as I see it, driving down a road is not a stunt.

If it's going fast? Actors never drive themselves in scenes, they're usually pulled, unless it's a quick shot of them behind the wheel. Wasn't the shot from behind? At. the end of the day, she got hurt, and he was ultimately responsible because he insisted and he's the director.

I haven't seen it but I'm guessing there is over the top bloody scenes like all of his movies.

These incels who come here.... why??

I guess I don't see the point of the revisionism. It doesn't seem like a "what if this happened instead..." supposition, because it comes at the end of the film rather than at the beginning - so there's no heft or exploration of what the impact would have been for Tate personally or Hollywood and American culture in general. I felt the same way about Inglorious Basterds. It's one thing to posit a world where Hitler was violently assassinated and then explore what that might have meant for the war at large. But just to blow his head off at the end means that the whole thing is simply a revenge fantasy. And revenge fantasies don't have repercussions or after-effects. That's why they're fantasies.

Isn't anyone here appreciating the way the place and time was evoked? I guess you have to be an elder....

Or just be smart. Yes, R153, I did appreciate that.

R153. If you want images of LA in 1969, go to the library for picture books or old film reels.

Don’t you want an actual story when you go to the movies? Or to you just want images of places?

For R153. I saved you a trip to the library.

As any idiot knows, it isn't just about looking at old images, R155/R156. There was plenty of story in the movie. You didn't like it, fine, but there were plenty of people who did.

I was especially disappointed in the music. I lived in the Hollywood hills in 1969. The music of that era was part of the reason I wanted to watch the movie along with the street scenes. They didn't use any of the popular music of that time. I guess because they didn't want to pay for royalties.

What really makes me sad is that movies like this and Marriage Story being lauded as outstanding only speaks to how terribly mainstream film has declined in quality since Disney took over the theaters. Mediocre is our new brilliant because Marvel and Star Wars and such have ruined our palates.

They've used songs for other movies of his. That doesn't seem likely. And they did use some songs of that period, R158.

Anything that isn't oversaturated bunk full of CGI and explosions is seen as Ibsen because we'll take what little scraps of real film we can get in a Disney dominated world.

What would you have liked to hear, R158? Sincere question, I love the music of the era, and I did like Tarantino's choices, some were a little unexpected but still evocative.

I didn't even recognize a lot of the music and I'm a huge fan of 60's music having lived in that time. Some of it might have been country music and I never listened to country. but didn't hear music from jefferson airplanes or Hendrix or any of that type of music. Not even Beatles or Stones. Still big in '69.

The doors, Big Brother And The Holding Company all big in LA at the time

I liked the use of Mamas and Papas and Paul Revere and the Raiders. They were connected to that Terry Melcher-Roman Polanski crowd.

All Tarantino does are revenge fantasies. Look at his last 4-5 films.

Tries to be a time capsule from 1969. Overuse of music from that year. Not much dialogue in comparison to music. Leo’s feet are hot

The use of Brother Love’s Traveling Salvation Show was pretty great.

So, R166? What you're talking about is a matter of taste. All Hitchcock made was suspense films. If you don't like the kind of movies Tarantino makes, don't go to them. There are plenty of people who do like them.

These straight incels who obsess about this directors movies make Tarantino look foolish. Incels. Nobody wants that audience.

R170, the night I saw the movie last summer, it was full of people--straight couples, gay couples (at least me and my boyfriend)...in fact, it was sold out in a very large theatre in Brooklyn. I don't think the rest of the audience all consisted of incels. I don't think there are 500 incels going to the BAM movie theatre. I saw black people in groups, white people in groups. All kinds of people.

Oh, and I do remember a fair amount of women. I remember that because I wasn't sure how many women actually did go to see Tarantino movies, but in this case, I noticed a lot.

No Tarantino commentary on Blu-ray. Kinda disappointing extras.

R159, I think that's nostalgia for a past that doesn't exist. There are some really good movies now, and there were some really good movies then. But in the supposedly classic era, there was an absolute deluge of shit pictures, just like now.

The one thing that distresses me is how comic book type storytelling is becoming so dominant -- increasingly it seems you can't tell a story unless you're wearing a cape and leotards.

R171 spread your shit elsewhere.

R175 seems to be having an anger management problem. Over a movie no, less.

*Over a movie, no less.

R169 you have to actually waste your time watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood to realize that everyone praising it is full of shit.

[quote]everyone praising it is full of shit.

Just like yo mama's mouth was last night after I crapped in it.

Hunty R178, that's just your opinion, which is what I've been saying all along.

[quote] Anything that isn't oversaturated bunk full of CGI and explosions is seen as Ibsen because we'll take what little scraps of real film we can get in a Disney dominated world.

Sony is just as bad because they turned a major studio into advertising for their overpriced low-end electronics.

Wait, Sony is low-end now?

When Sharon Tate is at the movie theatre, she's watching a preview trailer for "C. C. and Company" which wasn't released until October of 1970.

This is my favorite movie of 2019, I saw it three times in the theater and once streaming at home.

I love the ending, it made me happy and sad at the same time, wishing that's the way it had actually gone.

[quote] Wait, Sony is low-end now?

I upgraded my home theater components to minimize the use of Sony products. Also, the price for all things 4k finally came into my range.

[quote] I love the ending, it made me happy and sad at the same time, wishing that's the way it had actually gone.

Blame the state of California for its undeserved leniency on the Manson "family" members for the fact that they kept that asshole alive when they should have executed him. The man was a white supremacist. Notice how John Waters always skirts that aspect of their ideology when talking about them.

R180 just comprehended that opinions aren't facts.

Now, let's get to work on your times tables...

Wow--harsh, R187!

LMFAO!

Hugs, Hunty.

R184: "I saw it three times in the theater and once streaming at home. "

It's nice that you find things to fill up your days, dear.

I thought it was overrated.

I love a story where the Manson gang does not win.

How could you not be happy to see those bastards die in such pain? Seeing them fail so spectacularly was a dream come true.

Now he should change history for Trump and Republicans, 2019.

Because, R192, he spent 2 hours+ portraying specific accurate details to the point of obsession, then pulled the rug out last minute into purse absurdity and wish fulfillment.

It's like 'The Grapes of Wrath' suddenly turning into a color musical comedy in the last twenty minutes.

Those purple grapes would look smashing in Technicolor

If Tarantino's movie was a bleak, dire movie like"Grapes of Wrath" for its first 2 hours, then maybe, R193, your analogy would be accurate. But it wasn't. The tone of Tarantino's movie didn't change, just the real-life events.

I objected to his blowing up Hitler in his other movie because it was such a ridiculous suggestion in the face of the horrible events of history. In this case, I felt his screwing with actual events, while outrageous, wasn't offensive, it was satisfying.

Your inconsistency is noted, R195, as is your inability to recognize a farfetched analogy for what it is.

"as is your inability to recognize a farfetched analogy for what it is."

For what it is--stupid? I did recognize that. Actually, there's no inconsistency, and the fault lies with the person making the farfetched analogy. So, R196, dear, do fuck off.

R197 = the boring person at parties who interrupts and explains jokes.

R196=the tired person whose moniker is an SNL character from 1975.

R199 = The inane queen who fails to see his own ironic stupidity with a failed insult aimed at a 1970s fictional character reference while flatulently lauding a faux-retro 1960s-set bloated work of cinema that fictionalizes reality.

Given the tastes of many DLers, I am not surprised that many on here did not like it.

Darling eldergay R200, shouldn't yoube putting on your nightdress and taking your dentures out? Nearly bedtime!

Dear sad R202, shouldn't you not rely on dusty pathetic clichés in your sad attempt to appear clever?

Anna-Kat was robbed!

^Says the old queen whose moniker is LeonardPinthGarnell.^

For R203

Types R205, who has a firm grasp of the obvious, and little else.

R207, I definitely have a firm grasp of the obvious, when it comes to you, and you're right--in your case, there is little else.

R208 = an ankle-biting drone, boned up that anyone'[s paying attention to him, yet seething that anyone dare critique his precious pretentious movie. He has nothing to add but wan dribbling bile and Troll 101 technique.

Whatever have to you done in your little weasely life to justify this online-only attempt at superiority?

"Whatever have to you done in your little weasely life to justify this online-only attempt at superiority?" R209, I ask you the same thing. Old ladies first.

R210 = exemplary sociopath; has no unique ideas, only reflections of actual real people with creativity to mimic.

Sad.

So R211 has no answer to her own question when it's put to her, and must resort to a sad old word salad of silly little barbs. Poor old dear.

R211 = proof of why Baby Boomers have earned the ire of every generation before and after it.

That's not me (R212) at R213. So, R211, there are now two of us laughing at you. Poor you!

Idiot check for R212, etc. -

Uses female gender as an insult.

After avoiding the simple question of R209, turns it into evasion and like a true sociopath, thinks he asked the question first.

R212: avoidance shows the vacuity of your empty, sad life.

R213: proof of why R213 is a dumb shit.

R214 = laughing to itself in an empty room is proof of psychosis.

But sweetie, you never answered your own question when put to you. Why don't you? And I'm sorry you feel the heat from two people who see you sad an irrelevant, right down to your moniker. I'm sure you thought that sign-off was clever at the time, didn't you?

*who see you sad AND irrelevant

R-90% of the inane dumbass posts in this thread are the troll who spends 24/7 on this thread obsessively, psychotically defending this shitsplat of a movie.

"Why don't you?"

You were asked first, psychotic twit.

I tried watching it last night. I didnt get past the sitting in a driveway, with one of them (dont recall who, it was that memorable) exclaiming that the pedophile was his next door neighbour.

Whixh was somewhere around the beginning, yet i was still robbed of two minutes of my life.

I like that Leo killed that brat from Better Things. That was fun!

R214/R215 is an ableist, a sexist, a bully, and a philistine who has nothing to offer anyone except stale ad hominem attacks, armchair psychiatry, and problematic pop culture references (yes, SNL is problematic and if you’ve got a problem with me saying that then that’s just too fucking bad).

Poor Miss Havisham at R219 thinks that's an indictment of something when it isn't.

R220--was I obligated to answer some inane, pointless question coming from you? I don't think so. I invited you to take a stab at its, and even you couldn't be bothered.

R221--the troll who sees the entire movie (or supposedly only two minutes of it) with one thing in mind: Roman Polanski is a pedophile--why isn't THAT in the movie?

Using the g-word instead of sex is sexist. Female is a sex. Say sex, motherfucker, or you will never get any ever again.

The troll is so pushy it’s like Tarantino is on here personally bitching about people not liking it.

Considering the sad level of discourse on the part of the rabidly anti-Tarantino contingent, Tarantino wouldn't bother.

R223/R224 = so triggered and foaming at the mouth with bile, and complete unawareness of his Eve-like sociopathology.

That's another old movie, twit.

"SNL is problematic" R223 is WOKE!

R223 and R224 are two different people, Lady Pinth. Poor confused old dear!

You're both insipid trollettes, DEAR.

Pompous buffoon R228/R229 proves why [italic]The Carol Burnett Show, SCTV, The Muppet Show[/italic] and [italic]MAD TV[/italic] all were funnier.

Fuck off R224, thats not what i said at all. I said it was ... in words you can comprehend:

FUCKING BORING.

You miserable cunt.

I watched it up until Leo's "hippies get out of my neighborhood with your shit car" speech.

I felt no need to watch the bloodbath.

Tedious, poorly constructed movie.

Felt like Robie was being used just like Tate.

But I will rewatch Matt Helm...

It was nothing but crap when the killing began. It was like some shit found in a cutting room floor was just shoved in.

The troll isn’t gay. The troll is an incel. Fuck off back to the troll farm you gimpy slave-fan.

R233, desperate to feel superior, uses base terminology for female anatomy, then shrieks in horror when lesser insults are poised at him.

Inept trolling at its most mediocre. Thumbs down.

Seems to me, R236, that those who hiss so hissssssingly at Tarantino are the ones who aren't get fucked.

—LeonardPinthGarnell

Cunts be cunty.

It was worth watching for Brad Pitt, but if Tarantino has any fetish in this film, it was his obsession with fucking cars. The screenplay is ridiculous. He doesn't deserve an award for anything in this crapfest.

Tarantino is sooooo closeted.

Either he's a foot-fetish perv of women or he's a closet queer (who just happens to have a pregnant wife at the moment.)

Something tells me the antipathy of Tarantino is personal on this thread.

Just voted for Brad and not Leo for the SAG Actor.

Calm down Becky, it's just a movie.

R201 you and your elevated taste and this piece of shit movie

R238 Tarantino fans are all bottom whores?

r238, Tarantino has inadvertently turned into self-parody.

When the best part of a Tarantino movie is Brad Pitt's erect, sweaty, sun-lit nipples, you have to wonder.

No, R246, not at all.

That was a nice part of the movie, R247, but for those who saw more in the movie than that, there was more to like.

[quote] It was worth watching for Brad Pitt, but if Tarantino has any fetish in this film, it was his obsession with fucking cars.

If Disney ever reboots [italic]The Love Bug[/italic], then I hope they keep him as far away from it as possible.

Brad Pitt, in a VW Super Beetle, recreating the "I can suck your cock while you drive" scene In OUATIH, with the next Sharon Tate wannabe, in Tarantino's "The Fuck Bug". A story about a stunt driver and his STIs.

Now THAT I'd watch.

Margot Robbie looks nothing like Sharon Tate. So the scene of her watching herself was a little far fetched. And, Sharon Tate who was beautiful looked 35 when she was an ingenue.

The film made Sharon look like a moron.

[quote] The film made Sharon look like a moron.

She’s the one who married a pedo.

Roman Polanski Pedo Troll at R253.

glad i'm not the only one who thought it was a piece of shit white boy fantasy, trash the asian and the mexicans, bash women to a pulp. and barbeque them (in a swimming pool? wtf?) with a flame thrower that just happened to be laying around.

What Asians and Mexicans were trashed? And it was the Manson murderers who died in the end. I assume R255 would have preferred seeing them stab pregnant Sharon Tate to death.

"What asians?"

Bruce Lee, silly.

I was a fan of Bruce Lee since childhood. He was never aggressive on or off-set. He avoided assholes who tried to start fights with him. The depiction of him in the film was shite.

(60) Totally agree - the scene where they were making the western flick was interminable.

He wasn't "trashing Asians." He was making fun of Bruce Lee as a character. That's not the same thing, silly R257.

I’m tired of this smug str8 white male bullshit.

Vuture says it will probably win Best Picture

HA! Imagine all the Tarantino-hating trolls on this thread going apoplectic if it were to win Best Picture.

HA! Imagine all the Tarantino-adoring bro-trolls on this thread who will spontaneously ejaculate from their tiny penises when it wins win Best Picture, because it will, since Hollywood loves nothing more than bloated fawning cinematic tributes to itself.

The AMPAS already proved itself permanently irrelevant by snubbing [italic]God's Own Country[/italic].

I don't think it's going to win, actually. Sorry to disappoint R263 in his fever dream of Tarantino hatred.

Tarantino has been overrated for years by pseudo-cinephiles.

The fact that this boring movie is even nominated for Best Picture shows how awards shows are run by studio publicity departments who love to stroke their own dicks.

[quote]Tarantino has been overrated for years by pseudo-cinephiles. The fact that this boring movie is even nominated for Best Picture shows how awards shows are run by studio publicity departments who love to stroke their own dicks.

Could someone please take the Chromebook from Miss De Haviland.

R266 is stating his opinion as fact.

I know plenty of people who love this movie, both people who saw it in the movies and those who are watching it streaming now...

R268 you're really having trouble with this opinions vs. facts thing, huh?

What do people like about this movie? Is it the 1960s radio ads? The fantasy ending? Brad’s bod?

Brad's bod was the only interesting thing about this shitpile and we got to see not nearly enough of it.

R268 plenty of people loved Fifty Shades of Gray, both people who saw it in the movies and those who are watching it streaming now...

1917....bet the farm.

I agree it could very well be something like 1917 that will win, R273--some safe, Motion Picture Academy-certified noble mediocrity. Something all the bores can appreciate.

This movie was terrible.

Movies are dead.

^^^Old person.^^^

I avoid Tarantino films because I just don't have the stomach for his brand of ultraviolent entertainment.

Well, it's better than any movie he made since Kill Bill

[quote]Tarantino has been overrated for years by pseudo-cinephiles.

The demise of video stores means we’ll be spared his successor-in-interest.

There are other ways other than video stores that cinephiles get their education.

Ever notice how many of them only know life through movies?

Saw 1917 yesterday. It is like one long Cocteau movie of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Getting To Godot.

It was Jungian journey.

George MacKay deserves every award he is nominated for.

OP is doing shit a disservice. At least you can grow some beautiful flowers out of shit.

I saw it and enjoyed it. I mostly agree with OP that it was lots of style and cool to watch but I wish there was more storyline and more time spent on Sharon Tate's story. I didn't hate it, I liked it though. There was kind of an impending sense of doom and horror and then the film went in a different direction.

More storyline? The movie is almost three hours long as it is!

Half of that is fetishistic shots of vintage car-driving and womens' dirty feet.

Why did Quentie transition over to dirty feet? Didn't he used to like clean ones?

Hated the Nazi movie and thought Christoph Waltz was so cliched he all but twirled a mustache "Death Proof" was one of the very few movies I ever fell asleep in. Gave up on Hateful after a half hour.

Casting Brad Pitt and Leonard DiCaprio as the two leads in your movie is the equivalent of movie poster clickbait.

All straight chicks will take notice, and their tranny-chasing husbands attracted to their pretty-boy features can easily imagine them in a pouty drag look.

Did Leo try to get Tarantino to hire Toby?

I didn't like this movie enough to read the thread...BUT what the fuck is going on with the sound? The mix is so horrible I has a headache after 45 minutes. PLEASE explain!

[quote]BUT what the fuck is going on with the sound? The mix is so horrible I has a headache after 45 minutes. PLEASE explain!

The Academy doesn't think so, maybe it was the theater you saw it at.

Academy Award nominations and sound people nominate sound...

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing... Michael Minkler Christian P. Minkler Mark Ulano

Best Achievement in Sound Editing... Wylie Stateman

The Academy can suck my dick.

No, thanks.

Has anyone suggested the little child actress - excuse me, actOR- is based on anyone in particular?

I’m surprised that we didn’t get loving, long close up shots of that little girl’s bare feet.

[quote] All straight chicks will take notice, and their tranny-chasing husbands attracted to their pretty-boy features can easily imagine them in a pouty drag look.

I heard Kirk Cameron has a whole stash full of porn like that that he hides from the Mrs.

Well we were right...

In addition to thanking his co-stars, he thanked his female costars’ feet: “Margot Robbie, Margot Robbie’s feet, Margaret Qualley’s feet, Dakota Fanning’s feet.”

“Seriously, Quentin has separated more women from their shoes than the TSA,” Pitt said, leaving his co-stars in stitches.

Tarantino's alleged foot fetish has been discussed, here and elsewhere, for many years.

Quentin Tarantino's face looks like he was birthed from Madame Puppet and a club foot.

The movie wasn't bad. It was that stupid ass ending that killed it for me. What the hell was that? You guys were almost murdered so I guess we'll talk to you finally and invite you over for drinks.

Qualley's performance was probably my favorite thing about that film.

Brad's character was basically just...Brad Pitt. If he gets an Oscar, it's because people just find him likable or "it's just his time."

Leo was good.

R301 Come on, it was hilarious. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Anyone who grew up sneak-reading their parent's paperback of "Helter Skelter" would.

Somewhere, Julia Roberts is finding a way to present the Oscar to Brad.

“I love my life!!!!!”

R302 Of the apparent acting winners Pitt and Dern seem to be getting "it's their time" Oscars. While Phoenix and Zellweger actually gave transformative performances. I enjoyed Pitt and Dern in their roles but not getting the award love.

Completely overrated. As much as I enjoyed the cinemetography and overall design I felt it was Tarantino's weakest film. So self-indulgent. Leonardo's accent was terrible and a lot of what seemed to be conveyed as clever (ie Brad Pitt feeding his dog, the Jay Sebring scene at the end, the voiceover diologue) came off as stupid. There were too many "badass" sequences (the entire ending) that seemed like something out of a Michael Bay film. As mentioned above the Rick Dalton character was too unlikable and angry for me to care about.

Quentin should market a candle that smells like Uma Thurman's feet.

Does anyone get the joke/reference behind when the Jay Sebring character, entering El Coyote, says that dirty movie premieres are fun?

Terrible movie.

Qualley is a goddess. I can't believe she's the daughter of that Cedar Cove chick. Qualley has a weird/witchy/mysterious/yet relatable energy.

I'm the troll who thinks Agyness Dean should've gotten a "Best Supporting Actress" for her role in "Her Smell." She was fucking amazing.

Qualley was the perfect little freaky hippie chick. Very good in that part.

I wish there were an Oscar category for teeny tiny roles or cameos. The Bruce lee guy, or Bruce Dern, or even Rebecca Gayheart were all hilarious.

Brilliant - Deserves best picture

[quote]I wish there were an Oscar category for teeny tiny roles or cameos

There is R311, it's called "Supporting", and I nailed an Oscar in 5 minutes

R312 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's a good one,

I had to work an extra 3 mins for mine, bitch

Rebecca Gayheart must have been onscreen for about 15 seconds. I don't remember her being in this movie at all. IMDB says she played "Billie Booth." I don't remember that character.

R316 She was Brad Pitt's wife on the boat in the flashback scene.

I wouldn't put this film above most of Tarantino's other movies. Same with Scorcece's "Irishmen." It just seems like these films were made only for hype and for the sake of winning an Oscar because they lost in previous years.

So your theory is Tarantino and Scorsese deliberately made films that are lesser than others in their oeuvre in order to win the Oscar that their better efforts didn't?

After a certain point in their careers filmmakers tend to become caricatures of themselves. Ingmar Bergman took umbrage when a critic quipped that ‘Bergman has started to make Bergman movies’. The same applies to Scorsese, I think. Tarantino is different in that his films have always been pretty much parodies and pastiches of older, better movies he obsesses over,

R319 If you look at how the Academy handled the "Oscars are too white" situation with all the movies starring actors of color and made by directors of color popping up at the end of the year before the next years Oscar season. It's all political, so, yeah, I'm almost positive Tarantino and Scorcese whipped up something they thought was an epic materpiece in order to garner an Oscar because they've lost in previous years. I'm sure in their minds they thought thay had something groudbreaking, but are actually mediocre in comparison to the films of theirs that lost Oscar wins in previous years.

Overblown Oscar baiting from beginning to end that worked.

I'd be surprised if any women Academy voters would vote for a misogynist perv like Tarantino.

Bloated bromance

You get to see Leo's very sexy feet when he's rehearsing lines in the pool.

I saw it twice in theaters and enjoyed it. The end seemed almost cathartic.

R324 he's gross

R317 I like the movie, have the Blu-ray and have watched it several times. Rebecca's itty-bitty performance makes me laugh every time. I think she deserves an itty-bitty Oscar.

Tarantino tends to rewrite a lot of history in his films. I remember him getting a lot of criticism from the African American community for Django.

Daddy Tarantino HaHaHaHAHaHa

It’s an easy film to mock.

That was fun, R329. And as one who liked the movie, I would say it was a tribute to some of the most memorable bits.

Brilliant movie

R331 how so?

I’m not 331 but I will say it perfectly captures a time and place, and gives us the ending we all wanted.

I enjoyed it especially the sets and backgrounds.

There's an series of anonymous interviews that get published in the week or two leading up to the Academy Awards. I've noticed them the last four or five years. Anonymous voters are asked about who / which films they voted for and why. One of the anonymous voters voted for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD because he said the film depicts the movie industry pretty accurately and didn't want a foreign director to win.

Personally I enjoyed it. And Hollywood loves movies about itself so it will probably end up winning something.

Anyone else notice the Susan Dey cameo?

Wish Burt Reynolds could have played his. But Bruce Dern was a worthy replacement.

What happened to Tarantino's wife? I haven't seen her in ages. You'd think the happy new husband and father-to-be would proudly parade her around at all the award shows.

Has she given birth in secret and preferred to stay at home, lovingly tending to the fruit of Quentin's loins? Has she lost the child and is in recovery? Is she still pregnant and confined to her bed? Is she HUGE and in hiding?

Or is there something more sinister going on? I'm starting to feel a little worried.

R262 Tarantino-hating trolls on this thread not going apoplectic

R338 I’m assuming they’re fraus

Ha ha Quentin snubbied by his god, Oscar

I’m sorry, Bradley referencing *John Bolton* of all people in his speech was so lame.

He was perfect.

R341 = a triggered deplorable

R343 = stupid, predictable, and tiresome

The Incels who love their bewigged plastic surgery faced Tarantino must be so upset.

R339 Fraus are the target demographic for this shitshow with the dreamy, pretty-faced Leo & Brad.

Just watched it a second time. I appreciated it more. It's more like a Robert Altman film than a Tarantino film. Uneventful, really, just a day in the lives of neighbors and friends. Brad and Leo love each other in a platonic way. Sharon showing off her baby's nursery was really tragic.

Turned it off after the Bruce Lee scene. Knew then this would not be my bag.

Why is the nursery scene sad? In this movie, Sharon and her baby live happily ever after.

Brad Pitt won because of best sweaty male nipple in the sun. Not since Paul Newman has the sweaty male nipple looked so good on screen.

A well deserved award.

I like Brad and know him in real life but didn't think his role merited any sort of recognition. I was much more captivated by Leo. Qualley was also transcendent and took me deeper into that world than any other performance other than Leo's.

Margot was absolutely attrocious. I doubt she even studied the actress she was supposed to portray. All she did was smile as wide as she could to show those huge, yellow chiklet teeth and show off her feet so QT could jerk off to them later when his wife was asleep.

Good grief, project much?

[quote]I like Brad and know him in real life but didn't think his role merited any sort of recognition. I was much more captivated by Leo.

Do you know Leo? And is Leo gay?

Tarantino & his wife live in Tel-Aviv, where he is learning Hebrew. The baby hasn't been born yet.

R353 - I don't know Leo. No one I know "knows" him in anything other than a distant professional way. He has a good reputation though! He is kind/sexy/charming whenever I interact with him.

Up next: Pilate, the Action Flick!

[qoute]Turned it off after the Bruce Lee scene. Knew then this would not be my bag.

not into racist bullshit? me neither, see enough of that in real life every day

That billboard for Funny Girl seemed out of time for me.

Just watched it. I loved it. Beautiful looking film, with many striking sequences.

I think my favourite was the ranch sequence. Very suspenseful. I agree about Margaret Qualley. She was great. I loved how Tarantino set her up as a seemingly fun character with a lot of mystery.

I also loved the sequence when all the lights on the restaurant and store fronts were turning on as evening dawned. Very evocative.

I watched about 50 minutes before giving up. The Bruce Lee scene was kind of a decider for me as well.

Stupid scene on many levels.

Considering the era we live in, I'm surprised this movie wasn't even more controversial - or maybe it was controversial just enough to keep it from winning SAG Ensemble and Best Picture/Best Director/Best Original Screenplay. at the Academy Awards.

Tarantino is a misogynist and maybe even a racist.

DiCaprio dates models young enough to be his daughter and refuses to work with female directors. The reason why no one knows anything about him is because of his fascist NDAs.

I agree with the OP.

The movie, while well made I guess, was a complete waste of my time.

This movie left me as annoyed and underwhelmed as "La La Land".

Two crap movies that were extremely over-rated.

[quote]Why was Sharon Tate miming her fight motions while sitting in a theater watching her fight scene on the screen?

There were some nods to the whole Chop Socky exploitation genre in the film, thus it was lightly implied Bruce Lee had mind control powers, and Sharon's behavior was one of the clues about it.

Tarantino is a defender of Roman Polanski, and Polanski tried to blame Bruce Lee for the Manson murders. Absolutely true story. After Lee's death, two close friends of his said he was creeped out by Polanski who had little 12-14 year old girls hanging around him. Polanski didn't like that he spoke about it publicly. So of course Tarantino wasn't going to portray Bruce Lee in a positive way, he was going to use old Asian stereotypes of Secret Martial Arts Mind Control Brainwashing and all the other stuff, too. Very childish.

Margot Robbie's acting was great. Her scene in the theater was masterful... shy, happy, amazed, satisfied, all without words.

The point of the scene with Bruce Lee was show how badass the character of Brad Pitt was. Asumming it was racism is ridiculous, people from minorities are some how "untouchable" because you think they need to be patronized? I find that attitude more racist because it show you don't see them as equals.

R367, please STFU with that crap about it's more racist to not insult minorities. You're just another racist pig trying to justify your racism. For literally a century of movies minorities have been insulted by white filmmakers while white people were glorified and made the heroes of every movie. White people were the ones treated as "untouchable" and bigoted scumbags like you were perfectly happy with that. Not a complaint out of you about the overwhelming favoritism and catering to and pampering of white people by movies. Now that minorities are finally fed up and have made their dissatisfaction vocal you've got the goddamn nerve to suggest it's racist to treat them the EXACT same way white people have treated themselves since movies began? F**K YOU, PIG! Tarantino's treatment of Bruce Lee was racist and stupid and inexcusable.

I agree with the OP. I despised this tedious, ponderous, bloated, self-indulgent, plotless piece of crap. I also despise the easily placated moronic fanboys who think the last 10 minutes of idiotic violence was so amazingly great that it somehow redeems the meandering pointlessness of the rest of the movie. What's so great about seeing a woman get her face smashed into a phone a dozen times or a guy get bit in the crotch by a dog -- it isn't even creative or interesting violence. And what kind of lowbrow simpletons are you that you respond like Pavlovian chimps to it -- "oooohhh, violence! Yaaaaaayyyy!" Do you know what kind of morons you are for being so easily manipulated?

The movie isn't even put together with any consistency. After 2 hours suddenly a voiceover is introduced for one or two comments then disappears from the movie. Or worse, Tarantino goes to all the trouble of CGI-ing Leo into old TV shows like The F.B.I. but when Margot Robbie, who is supposed to be Sharon Tate, goes to the movies to see herself, Tarantino uses film of the real Sharon Tate. WTF. We can plainly see that it is two different actresses at that point. If the whole purpose of the scene is to show Sharon Tate getting giddy over seeing herself in a movie, it doesn't work because it just looks like one actress (Robbie) watching a completely different actress (the real Sharon). IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE EVEN ON THE MOVIE'S OWN TERMS. Just ridiculous. Tarantino was always an overrated, derivative hack who stole from much better directors' films to make inferior copies of their films and he has gone steadily downhill since he first showed up. The critics and his fans don't have the character to admit they were wrong when they initially overpraised him so now they feel obligated to keep overpraising the crap he turns out so that they don't look like duped idiots that they are. It isn't working. You fell for a con just like the Trump supporters.

[quote]Asumming it was racism is ridiculous, people from minorities are some how "untouchable" because you think they need to be patronized?

I said the movie used offensive stereotypes, which isn't the same as saying "minorities are untouchable." That's ridiculous.

Every Tarantino movie has dealt out offensive stereotypes. It's what he does. My theory isn't that he's racist against Asians but that he doesn't like Bruce Lee because his hero Polanski didn't like Bruce Lee.

Tarantino creating homage/montage from unknown, exploitation, and cult films was revelatory in the early 1990s, but it's difficult to defend nowadays. It just looks indulgent and derivative.

His reputation reminds me of Woody Allen's, in that they had an early trajectory that made critics and fanboys assume they were headed for the highest of heights, but then they sputtered out halfway there and the fanboys don't want to admit it. Now they have an emotional investment in his career so they have to say "he's not sexist, he just likes feet" and other stupid shit.

I felt that not using CGI on Robbie when they did on DiCaprio was indicative of how Tarantino "ranks" his actors, he prefers certain pet actors over others and treats them differently.

Um...it was okay. Not amazing. But Dicaprio--who I never thought much of--was great. Pitt was Pitt. Undeserving of the Academy Award so I'm just going to chalk that up to career achievements, longevity. etc. Tarantino didn't think much of Tate, did he? Christ, no wonder her sister was pissed.

It was really overrated BUT an overrated Tarantino film is still enjoyable. You can always find something to pull from it and that's usually the performances. He does well on that as a director.

I'm not American r368, and I don't see any stereotype on the Bruce Lee scene except about a movie star to be too cocky. I undestand your fucking racist country make you all over sensitive, but nobody need to be patronized. Take a chamomile tea and some cold compress and imagine the scene was about Chuck Norris, I you won't fade about the opressionn of the white devil over those poor coloured people.

R369 nailed it. Nothing further needs to be said.

R369!!

Margot Robbie was awful in this and no one can convince me otherwise. As someone aptly said above, it was so stupid watching her watch "her film" and then see the real Sharon Tate.

dirty feets, too.

Not a movie that would appeal to DLers.

I loved the Mean Dog cans in Rat and Squirrel flavors! Where can I buy some?

My dog