Was I even watching the same film?

Rating: 1/10 (1 September 2019)

All this critical acclaim for this film (mainly because it's a Tarantino one) is so baffling. So what's wrong with it? For a start nothing actually happens throughout until the last 10 minutes. It's a slow, turgid, self congratulatory affair with drawn out scenes and tons of tips of the cap to the 'era' - through the soundtrack and product placement of 1960s packaging, or 'real life' characters like Sam Wannamaker's appearance - that just aren't needed. They even splice Di Caprio into the Great Escape as a 'what if?' moment...but all for what? Just Hollywood slapping itself on the back again about being Hollywood.
There were genuine tense moments like when Pitt's character visits the Manson family allotment that turn into a damp squib. Again why was that scene so long? Why did they spend so much time on Di Caprio playing the baddy in the western but no time at all on his character's move to Italy (apart from the fact Tarantino wanted to imagine what 1960s spaghetti western posters would've looked like with DiC in them!). And what was the point of Al Pacino? Or Sharon Tate's character for that matter once you see the ending....?
This was a missed opportunity that could've been a great piece on an actor's dwindling career that just turned into a boring series of sort of linked scenes...albeit quite well acted ones. Tarantino is become the new Woody Allen...actors want one of his films on their resume despite the fact he hasn't made a good one in so long