sharon tate is more than some psychopath death... ive loved her growing up watching films and tarantino is infamous for sticking hot girls in roles with his choppy dialogue and you just don t do that with sharon tate... if he cast zach efron as robert deniro and tried to remake something iconic you d understand but unfortunately people mostly know sharon tate as tradgedyplease do look up pictures of sharon tate and her iconic eyes especially, she had the best body but unmistakably her twiggy eyes ... cherie from 30 rock... what s her face, katrina bowden has the same skinny blonde doe-eyes appeal... it s called there s a right way of doing something, you don t okay favroites and stick margo bland white australian cheese onto a story you ve made to clearly be like œlook how relevant old Hollywood is as they re getting older œthe dark side of hitchcock agrees... think i ain t?! read it you effing shmoes! learn!!!

the dark side of genius... never thought I d have to expel that onto citizens but my god, if you re going to finger play tampering with sharon tate i cant allow it and i have to speak on it

think i ain t? somebody fight me on it and put your dick where your easily typed out words are... fight me or don t ya shmoes

[Mild Spoilers]...This film was either misogynist trash or incredibly subversive satire of misogynist trash, i'm not sure which. Thought it was the latter coming out of it, but i get less and less sure the more i read online and see that absolutely no one read the movie like i did at first. But there's so much in this that gives me Starship Troopers flashbacks tonally. I guess it depends on how sophisticated one really thinks QT is or can be.Why am i rooting for the straight white dudes raging against hippies and counterculture again? Especially when one of them, ya know...shot his wife? Boy, was she a nag! Aren't wives nags?

I'm not 100% sure of what you're trying to say, Janeway, but I found her treatment in this film to be far above some some titillating, eye-candy adornment. Sure, some foot fetish stuff, and the clothes of the era are certainly not conservative, but she felt fully formed and really tender to me here. There's a scene in particular (or a couple, actually) that are super touching and humanizing. Seems like it is kinda the opposite of a throwaway performance. I really don't want to read any press or reviews about this film. Thought about it all week and plan on seeing it again this weekend. I think it is his second best film after Jackie Brown. Aforementioned waffles still stand, and that's precisely why I need to see it again.

Si, it's misogynist trash. Tarantino isn't sophisticated enough to be commenting on misogyny. So much gleeful violence against women, all played for laughs. No particularly well-developed female characters.DrAwkward wrote:[Mild Spoilers]...This film was either misogynist trash or incredibly subversive satire of misogynist trash, i'm not sure which. Thought it was the latter coming out of it, but i get less and less sure the more i read online and see that absolutely no one read the movie like i did at first. But there's so much in this that gives me Starship Troopers flashbacks tonally. I guess it depends on how sophisticated one really thinks QT is or can be.Why am i rooting for the straight white dudes raging against hippies and counterculture again? Especially when one of them, ya know...shot his wife? Boy, was she a nag! Aren't wives nags?

Ike wrote:some foot fetish stuffThe foot stuff was SO present I kinda think he's trolling a little at this point..."oh you figured out I like feet HERE'S SOME DIRTY FUCKING FEET ON A WINDSHIELD". Like, he's knows people are gonna mention it so, fuck it, HERE'S YOUR DAMN TARANTINO FEET.

I knew next to nothing about this, but I guessed the ending. No interest.

Angus Jung wrote:placeholder wrote:Well-acted with great production design and atmosphereSo the L.A. of the late-60s as depicted in the movie looks good? I think I'd probably see it just for that.Yes. That was more or less the only thing I liked about it.