Some brilliant, some mediocre elements

Rating: 7/10 (21 November 2019)

I don't watch many Tarantino movies. This movie caught my curiosity because it didn't focus on violence and contained some history (of which I had no idea what it was when I watched the film - I had read almost nothing about the film, so, I didn't recognise the Manson connection).
In many ways Tarantino superbly captured the free-spirited 60s, a time when society was easy going and nowhere near as hung up as it is today. Many modern portrayals of the 60s can only be described as heavily "revisionist" by failing to capture the free-loving and easy going spirit that is no longer seen today. People being sexually liberated and carefree is hard to capture in a film today, not just because of media outrage, but, because those elements are no longer found today and people would find it hard to get back into that mindset. However, Tarantino did a great job of capturing that spirit.
Sadly, there are two things that annoy me about the film. Firstly, Julia Butters (playing Trudi Fraser) is a blaring anachronistic character. This obnoxious character is someone you would find today, not in the more carefree 60s. A child who behaved arrogantly like this would have been frowned upon almost universally. It strikes me odd that Tarantino was sniped by a similar personality from the New York Times. However, Tarantino thinks that feeding narcissists will appease narcisissts. How wrong he is!
Lastly, the violence in the film is over the top. I understand this is Tarantino signature. This is probably why I don't watch more Tarantino flicks. The over-the-top violence was meaningless and added nothing to the film.
Overall, the acting was solid. Most of the characterisation of the 60s (except Trudi Fraser) were exceptionally well done. Fraser's character was an anachronysm, typical of most other modern revisionism. Overall, an entertaining story. Pitt was excellent as was Robbie.