Manson, Hitler
white male rage
World War I 'cause of white male rage....

It fits.

Anonymous wrote:I liked it, but I did think it good be at least 30 minutes shorter.

Yes would have been truly fabulous with tighter editing.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone else see this? Anyone else think it was....mostly boring? I though Pitt did a great job, as did DiCaprio. But most of the movie, I kept thinking "point, pls?"

Felt like it was a loose series of vignettes that meandered and was just...blah.

Mind numbing. QT is now in the artistic viewpoint part of his career. Some of those scenes were just painful to watch they were so slow. Sure, his other movies also had those shots but the films were much more balanced.

Pitt was really good but not sure why all the award buzz. It wasn't THAT great. He'll probably fall into the "he's never won before and maybe should have so he'll win this time" category.

In short, almost 3 hours of my life I'll never get back.

My favorite movie from last year. Felt like a love letter to late 60s Hollywood.

Really interesting film! I enjoyed it.

I liked it, but I did think it good be at least 30 minutes shorter.

I loved the movie.

I liked it but also found it boring. I fell asleep in the western movie scene, which went on way too long

Anonymous wrote:I loved the scene of Leo dancing on that goofy show with the female dancers. He so looks the part for that era. Same thing in Catch Me if You Can.

Love that movie!

This movie was great! I waited so long to see it because I hate Quentin Tarrantino. But this film is terrific.

I loved the scene of Leo dancing on that goofy show with the female dancers. He so looks the part for that era. Same thing in Catch Me if You Can.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Pitt was excellent but not for one second did I believe he was a bad guy, a man who killed his wife. He just has too much natural bonhomie to convince as a character like that. Maybe he's too famous to convince, I don't know. But DiCaprio was absolutely amazing. He is so talented.

The potential wife killing thing was supposed to evoke Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner. Robert Wagner was likable and believable enough to be employable after her death, but he has always had that cloud of suspicion hanging over him anyway.

Ah yes, now I understand the allusion! Though Natalie Wood drowned by falling off their boat, whereas Brad Pitt’s character shoots his wife with a speargun.

Maybe he did or maybe he didn't! We don't see him do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed it, more than most Tarantino movies. While watching I wondered how much the average viewer today would understand about the whole Manson thing. I was alive then and remember it, also read the book Helter Skelter and later saw the movie that was made from that book, so I got every little detail of it.

The ending was bizarre, I guess Tarantino imagining a happier resolution.

I'm 37. I didn't know Sharon Tate was a real person until the person sitting next to me whisper-screamed to his wife "That's the real Sharon Tate" during the movie theater scene. I inferred that Charles Manson did something heinous from all of the times he's been mentioned in other movies, but I thought he was a serial killer or cannibal. I didn't know anything about the cult until I googled it after the movie.

If this made you interested, there's a fantastic podcast you might enjoy - You Must Remember This with Karina Longworth. She did a whole series on the Manson murders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really enjoyed it, more than most Tarantino movies. While watching I wondered how much the average viewer today would understand about the whole Manson thing. I was alive then and remember it, also read the book Helter Skelter and later saw the movie that was made from that book, so I got every little detail of it.

The ending was bizarre, I guess Tarantino imagining a happier resolution.

I saw it with my 19 yr old DS. He knew about none of it (and I didn't realize that was what the movie was about, it was a spur of the moment choice). So I'm going to guess virtually nothing. He's a pretty well read/educated kid--ok, young man--and he knew nothing about Sharon Tate.

That's so interesting - what did he think of the movie? For me, I spent the whole time dreading her murder. (And it was so cathartic to have that reimagined history.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Pitt was excellent but not for one second did I believe he was a bad guy, a man who killed his wife. He just has too much natural bonhomie to convince as a character like that. Maybe he's too famous to convince, I don't know. But DiCaprio was absolutely amazing. He is so talented.

The potential wife killing thing was supposed to evoke Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner. Robert Wagner was likable and believable enough to be employable after her death, but he has always had that cloud of suspicion hanging over him anyway.

Ah yes, now I understand the allusion! Though Natalie Wood drowned by falling off their boat, whereas Brad Pitt’s character shoots his wife with a speargun.