Not Tarantino for his 90s fans.

Rating: 7/10 (28 August 2019)

This movie appears to be splitting critics for some obvious reasons which are nothing to do with the quality of whats on offer.
This is not the 90s wham bam constant action to a groovy soundtrack with multiple plot twists Tarantino movie.
If thats what you think you are getting you will be disappointed. This is a more mature and skilled Tarantino affair in which your own knowledge of cinema will be rewarded if you have that background. Think of Marvel Easter eggs but for film buffs.
This is a high quality movie which has great dialogue without being overly preachy or Tarantino-esque and lush cinematography.
Its almost 2.45 hours long but doesnt feel too long, unless you were expecting a 90s Tarantino movie.
The mastery of the movie however is the story telling, you simply do not see coming what does and like Hitchcock, Tarantino is fantastic at building up tension. We expect the narrative to go one way however.....
In short you will need to see this before its ruined with spoilers.
It has been attacked on very simplistic, lazy and selfish identity politics reasoning.
We have critics who have attempted to quantize the value of female characters by using the metric of words spoken. However not by all the female characters just by one. Using this metric negates every other aspect of what an actor brings to the screen. If acting was judged on word count alone we would have some very odd looking movies. Its also telling that this highly selective metric is applied to only character. The odd thing is there are far more females in this movie than males. How does that add to the argument this is a sexist movie? Also the female characters are treated exactly the same as the males when they step out of line. If anything this movie does more to enhance the memory of Sharon Tate and extend her screen life than any identity politics rant that ignores facts in order to skew an audiences mind into not seeing the movie. The identity politics advocates real issue is that they did not like seeing women experience violence, they are loath to articulate this clearly so they label the movie as misogenistic. They know that if they did explicitly state this is that there are two main issues with this stance. Firstly that the Manson family are known for the murder of a pregnant woman and her child for no reason and secondly that they would be asking for special treatment for only the female Mansons, that is despite their violent intent they should be spared any violence because they are female. Clearly an immature position based on identity politics and laughably unfair. It appears they would rather see female Manson murderers get away it and receive therapy for their deeds instead of swift justice.
Also the other criticism seems to be about the fact you can see feet in the movie. However thats only an issue for those very odd people who hate feet, despite the fact they also have them.
I actually find these people stranger than foot fetishists.
This movie treats its female characters as equals throughout and enhances the public image of Sharon Tate.
This is a major success for Tarantino in 2019.
Its a very grown up movie for grown ups, ignore the identity politics brigade and the immature I hate feet people!