A true art of film making

Rating: 9/10 (29 July 2019)

Self claimed expert critics and PC people are missing the point by asking what is the point. I want to digress a little by the ridiculousness of some criticisms: (1) "Why was Margot Robbie not given more lines?" Did those people ever stop to ask why the oscar winner Al Pacino was not given more lines? (2) "Tarantino has some kind of anger and hatred towards women." They never say that about men when we killed them off in other movies. (3) "What is the point of the movie? What is the plot?" If you don't get it, ask others and STFU! Don't tell other people not to watch this movie. Alright rant over.
Review: Not his best movie in conventional sense. Much more mature. He absolutely has mastered the art of controlling his audience like he is the conductor. People describe this as his love letter movie, his most personal movie, his most self-indulgent movie, blah blah. This movie is simple: a period piece: 1969 and the hallmark movements and events (hippies and Manson murders) in/around that year. Tarantino creates 2 characters Rick and Cliff and throws them into that period. The plot of the movie is about understanding what would happen if these two characters were present in 1969 doing things they did. That's it.
Tarantino knows what the audience is expecting. He teases you in and out of moments at his will. He takes a slice of life of his two characters (first two hours of the film) and lets you observe them. Ask a private detective how boring it can get keeping an eye on someone. Its essentially that. In these two hours, he lets to get immersed into the 1969 hollywood: he shows you some people getting successful - like Sharon Tate (why her? because she is the one relevant to the plot. Tarantino is not wasting your time introducing useless people). He shows some commoners struggling (Rick Dalton). In the two hours you get a picture of who these people are. Its necessary because you know Sharon Tate (actually the more of you know of/about her the better. Do some research), people know. Rick and cliff, you don't. So you need to understand what these people care about, how they react to things, what they are looking for in life. Tarantino takes two hours to set this up. You can argue that this could have been done better. And I agree. But I don't really have problems. There are some great scenes and acting sequences and Hollywood nostalgia. The third act is the true purpose of his movie. How the three characters (Tate Dalton Booth and Mansonites) intermingle and affect the historical occurrence without Dalton and Booth. Tarantino takes what we know of history and affects it by introducing two characters. Will they change history in more brutal and sad way? Will his characters make it in Hollywood? Are his characters actually lovable at the end? Are his characters relevant in the end? These are the answers you will find at the end of the movie...in Tarantino style.
I can't say if you will like it or not. If you are a Tarantino fan: absolutely must watch. If you are not, educate yourself about Sharon Tate, the 1960's LA, Playboy Mansion, Roman Polanski before you go watch the movie. I can assure you will tout Tarantino as a masterful genius. One thing for sure: this is a movie for the audience that wants to observe and figure the connections out and compares it with actual historical LA and events. It is not for the audience that likes to be spoon fed a plot and the punch line. And it is because it excludes this kind of audience I will give it 9/10 instead of 10/10. The problem with reading the critcs' comments is that you don't know which critic belongs to which type of audience.