Get a full month of MUBI FOR FREE: mubi.com/thetake (With the support of Creative Europe - MEDIA Programme of the European Union) Support The Take on Patreon: www.patreon.com/thetake Subscribe to keep up with our latest videos, and let us know what you want to see next!
@@fromthehaven94 Not cruel. He was training her. Doesn't matter if the dog is agressive or not if you bring discipline it will be much more easier for you to control him/her in unexpected situations.
It's kind of interesting that the gates open and let Rick in was seen as him being let in on the next wave of cinema, where as to me it felt like the gates of heaven/afterlife, with Sharon's disembodied voice welcoming him up. like the death of this era of hollywood movies, just like the death of this era of 60s love/peace, and they're all just chilling at Tate's house.
This makes a lot more sense to me. In showing Manson’s followers murdered in perfect “holywood style,” and then Rick being brought into the gates of Tate, Taruntino reminds us that what we have witnessed doesn’t really happen in the real world. The hero doesn’t always swoop in, guns blazing, to save the day at the last minute. In showing us the not-so glamourus parts of Hollywood celebrity life through Rick Dalton, the underlying cruelty of hippie culture through Cliff’s adventure, and “meta” moments like tate enjoying her own movie and Cliff invading old Hollywood movies Forest-Gump style, Taruntino does the reverse, showing us parts of Los Angelas life the audience rarely sees, never mind see on the big screen. The idea of old Holywood (and perhaps today’s Hollywood as well) was always a myth, this fantasy we still use to blanket the sinister truth underneath it all.
Nice interpretation, i like it. It could also be tied to the promise he made of shooting himself if he went back into alcohol. He was drinking a whole jug of booze just before, maybe he did shoot himself and kept his promise and integrity to himself at the same time...
And let's not forget the fact that Leonard DiCaprio won the Oscars for getting mauled by a grizzly bear in _Revenant._ That's pretty crazy for such a great actor.
@@PrussiasGirl I would highly suggest the channel Cinefix. I swear, my watch list gets a lot longer every time they put out a new "Top # movies" video. I've found a bunch of great movies I've never heard of before from that channel.
12:46 and now utilizing their children. Maya Hawke (Uma Thurman's daughter) is part of the Manson family and Rumer Willis (Bruce Willis's daughter) plays Joanna Pettet. Both Uma and Bruce were in Pulp Fiction by Tarantino.
Theory: Both Maya Hawke and Rumer Willis’s characters in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood are basically the sisters of Uma Thurman and Bruce Willis characters in Pulp Fiction.. hence the reason of the connection of the two movies..
If it was irrelevant it wouldn’t be in the film. The fact that Cliff likely killed his wife complicates his role as the “hero” and forces new interpretations-a theme which isn’t addressed in this video.
I think it was addressed but not explicitly. Nine years before in Rick and Cliff’s life, they WERE the men in the white hats in Hollywood, but now Rick is an alcoholic that plays bad guys and Cliff may or may not killed his wife. The video says the era started to focus more on morally ambiguous men, so the flaws we get to see are the crash between eras.
I saw it as a rather unfortunate reference to the death of Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner's involvement in it. The fact that Sharon was reflected in such a tender, endearing light while "Natalie" was an afterthought or a throwaway joke puzzled me.
Okay, so I seen the movie three times now, and I'm not totally sure. If this was Quentin Tarantino's intention for this and maybe I'm not understanding his words when he says that. It was a way to metaphorically Save Sharon Tate. But I also look at it this way. That I think that the movie Put Sharon Tate in a more positive light rather than just being known for the Manson Murders. But more or less as a good-hearted person a person that was an actress and she was going to have a long career. Absolutely, just sort of painting her in a positive light. Is sort of a good way of honoring her. As the way that she and her family would want her to be honored if you made it this far on this comment, thank you. I know this was pretty long.
I was born on the morning of 08 August 1969. Quentin Tarantino gave me the BEST BIRTHDAY PRESENT EVER!!! That is why this movie will always have a special place in my heart.
I really enjoyed One Upon A Time In Hollywood, full of movie and TV stars, action, comedy, nostalgia, evocative songs, etc ! Born in 1958, I was 10 when Sharon Tate was murdered and although I hadn't seen any of her movies (my father told me then she was Elly May Clampett on The Beverly Hillbillies, so he was confusing her with Donna Douglas but he wasn't far, later I found out that Tate played a minor character in an episode of that series) her death left an impression on me, as the MLK & RFK killings had the year before. So for me it was refreshing to watch Tarantino's vision of such a tragic event and his own personal justification to remake the facts in a way we all wish it had ended. Usually I don't like the kind of violence depicted in this picture but this time those bad guys really deserved what came to them. Also, the movie is so loaded with references to the TV series I recall from that period and the actors who starred in them that I had to see it twice. Nicholas Hammond, the guy who was Peter Parker in the 70s Spiderman TV series which I was a fan of, played director Sam Wanamaker in a scene. So many of the 60s TV western actors virtually disappeared from the screen (Ty Hardin, Clint Walker, Chuck Connors, to name some) while just a few of them trascended to movie stardom (Reynolds, Eastwood, McQueen, Bronson, etc) that it made me wonder what happened to those who could not. Tarantino answered some of those questions for me. This movie was great, up to Leonardo' very funny cigarette ad during the credits (you should never ever abandon the theater when the credits start rolling, stay seated, you already payed the full price, so relax and enjoy). Blessings from San Juan PR !!!
This movie is elite. I find it very similar to Dazed and Confused. You feel like you go along for the ride with each of the characters in the movie. The big difference is that Tarantino picked Sharon Tate as on of those characters and brilliantly added his awesome fictional version of the Manson murders.
My "cool" Uncle drove a baby blue Karmann Ghia just like Cliff's in the 60's. Being 7 years old in 1969 I really got this film and know just how Tarantino feels and what he was trying to do. I lived through that time it it was very much a roller coaster from day to day. Great moments mixed with tragic or even horrifying ones. Being the same age and having grown up on the same pop culture of the 60's and 70's I get the subtle (and no so subtle) references he makes in his movies.
momo 756 They did Carrie, Miranda and Mr. Big. Must have been a year ago or so. I wish, they had done Sam and Charlotte as well, though. Seems a shame, to leave the set uncompleted. Especially, since it was such a wildly popular series, with such contrasting characters.
Aspiring writer Voytek Frykowski? The guy was a drug dealer, living on Roman Polanski's couch, being an absolute slug doing nothing but mooching. He was a big reason why the Manson crew went up there that night. He was actually "aspiring" to the one of the major dealers of MDA in LA
@@Lillithowl It was both Manson and Tex Watson who had been up there multiple times. But they didn't go there simply "because Manson had been there before" .. There is alot more to that story.
On my first viewing, I must have missed a line of dialogue because I thought the hippies just made a mistake and attacked the wrong house. That history can change significantly by being off the mark by one house.
I just saw this the other day. I think this is the best Tarantino movie ever made. It is as good as Kill Bill 1 and Reservoir Dogs. Maybe it struck several chords with me because I just turned 50.
Great video! Love your essays and how you carefully explains things! Also I hadn’t thought about the movie being about the loss of innocence of the 19060’s. Great point!
Really good analysis, thanks! Also, Pacino is now a full blown caricature of himself. In all the recent roles I've seen him in, it's like he's doing a parody of someone else's impression of Al Pacino acting, which is weird and kinda sad.
I really enjoy the positive spin you put onto films you analyze. I really don't like Tarantino and not a fan of his films (except Kill Bill Vol 1 ). But I try to watch his films at least once, including this one. I didn't like it, I was so bored. However, your video highlighted themes I noticed but didn't really pay attention to. I appreciate that and I might go watch this film again because of your, take.
So, call me sentimental. The thing I saw in this film was the friendship between Rick and Cliff. Rick leaned on Cliff a lot and Cliff was completely unselfish and giving. But in the end, when Rick was asked if everyone was alright he failed to acknowledge that his friend Cliff had been hurt. He said, more than once, that everyone was fine. That hurt my heart a little.
That doesn't make it right. Rick should have acknowledged him, Cliff did save his life after all. He completely threw him away to satisfy his own fantasy of meeting Sharon Tate ... completely selfish!! Do you believe Cliff really didn't want Rick to come to the hospital to check on him? If so, I think you're wrong!
This film is the most "meditative" of all his films, which is something I don't think anyone was a) expecting from him, and b) didn't suspect he would have an interest in expressing. It is because the film is "unexpected" that it's kinda becoming a little divisive for some. I, for one, loved it all the way through. And as someone who is prone to melancholy, I get what he is saying. Personally, this one really resonates with me.
I also like how Schwarz’s monologue about the new generation TV stars coming in and beating up the Heavy played by actors from old shows is subverted by the end of the film. Rick at the start of the film was making a living by starring as the Heavy and getting defeated by new TV stars in new TV shows so these stars can advance their careers because they have symbolically proven themselves better than those that came before them. But by the end of the film, it is Rick who is defeating people from the new generation, his heavy. Which leads to him being able to advance his own career as immediately after, he is invited to meet Sharon Tate which will presumably lead to him getting better, higher paying, and more frequent acting roles for years to come. Rick proves himself by defeating his Heavy.
I didn't see this film in the theaters but did buy in on blu-ray, and but was well worth the money. Also I've not seen many of Tarantino's films but loved how this was filmed, loved seeing all old 60s TV and film references as well as seeing how Hollywood looked back then. And the ending was great, the only thing that was missing...it should have been Manson getting fried in the pool, but I'm assuming that, after the police came and took Cliff's statement, which hopefully he told them that the killers came Span Ranch, that it led to Manson getting locked up
The best thing Tarantino has ever done was casting Brad Pitt and Leo DiCaprio for this movie in particular due to the fact they have never worked together before. In my opinion, at the end of the movie Brad was more protagonist than Leo, and that's why Brad won an Oscar for best supporting actor. In fact, for moments I was terrified because I thought Brad was going to be murdered by Manson family but, I said, "c'mon, that's Brad Pitt". On the other hand, Tarantino did the same thing in Inglourious basterds movie, changing the course of the history with the next theory, "if Rick and his stuntdouble Cliff had been existed in that time, everything would have been different", don't you think?
Saw this movie& loved it...I can ask nothing more from a film. It was like a day spent at a buffet in the tropics to me, plenty of good things to choose from.
'Old Hollywood fights back against obsolescence.' Yes, but there's an irony in the fact that the Manson murders were the moment the hippie dream turned sour, and in the movie, Rick Dalton, who hates hippies, prevents the murders, which might mean the hippie dream itself survives a little longer - and maybe that he even gets to be part of it, via the new Hollywood driven by successful hippy types like Tate, Polanski and Peter Fonda. 'Cowboys vs. Hippies.' Except some of the hippies also look like cowboys - and one of them's even called Tex, and wears a black hat. The parallel between Rick as a hippified cowboy villain is with Tex too, not just Manson. What's going on with the closeup of a movie poster that's the first colour shot in the film (after the pastiche TV interview with Dalton and Booth)? It's a closeup of Rick's face on a fragment of hoarding that sits, for some reason, in his driveway. The full poster is seen very briefly in his home: it's for a fictitious film called 'Cheyenne Uprising' and shows Dalton's head pinned to the ground by the boot moccasin of, presumably, one of the Cheyenne. Except the same style of moccasin is also given its own closeup early in the film: the first shot of Booth, his feet getting out of the car, wearing the moccasins, with Daltons' cowboy boots in the background. The closeups seem to indicate the importance of all this, but what is it? Might Cheyenne Uprising be another, unmade, Tarantino revanchist rewrite of history, this time with the Native Americans triumphing against their paleface oppressors? I don't really know, but there also seems to be some fantasy here of Booth, seemingly Dalton's brother in arms, besting him in a fight. And while Booth is, as you say, portrayed as the 'real' gunslinger, he also seems to be identified with the Native Americans. Amidst all the numerous cowboy references, there are also a few pointed references to Native Americans: the camera drifting up deliberately to show us the street sign 'Cherokee'. A truck with the word 'Navajo' on the side. And maybe most pertinently, the information that one of the film's Dalton made in Italy was based on a book called 'The Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian,' which is a quote ascribed to an American officer in Dee Brown's classic 'Indian History of the American West,' 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.' The more you look, the more it seems that the quintessential Hollywood fairytale, the site of once upon a time, is the western. And what fairytale - in the sense of lie - is being told there? Cowboys good guys, Indians bad guys? Not sure. Even before the revisionist westerns, it wasn't always that simple, vis The Searchers. Still, maybe this film is sort of trying to problematise that myth in a way that's similar to The Searchers. Sorry for writing an essay, especially such a rambling and inconclusive one. I just find this film fascinating, but I haven't figured it out and don't even know if there really is anything more to figure out, though I feel I could say more. OK, a tiny bit more: Tarantino has, as you say, made it super clear that he doesn't think movies inspire violence, at least in the sense of turning kids into psychotic killers. But if he's undermining the John Wayne myth here, is he maybe taking on movies as propaganda for systemic violence?
Coincidentally, the Beatles shot the Abbey Road cover that very day, 8th August, 1969. Their last recorded album, their last cover. The 60s ended that day indeed.
Okay knowing what I know from this video now I understand why sharon tate and her crew were even in the movie. Okay THANK YOU FOR CLEARING THIS UP!!! y'all are amazing Because I didn't know anything about the Manson murders. I went into this movie completely dark.
Tarantino has always stated that movies are fantasy and escapism & if a person is inspired to violence by watching one of his movies, they wasn’t the intent, the intent was to entertain only.
Just unique, especially when you have been in Hollywood quiet a view Vito Times, has survived all the Movie and Rock and Roll 🎸 World and Love Showbusiness as much as I do too........Quentin Tarantino plus Friends are Just a Phenomenom!,,👏🏻🤝👏🏻👍👍
I walked into this movie blind with little knowledge of the mason murders (I don’t have a taste for learning about that kind of thing) and it was only at the very end that I connected the dots
One aspect of this movie's meta/subtext that I haven't seen anywhere yet is that Tarantino essentially takes away Polanski's Batman villain origin story in his first post-TWC film, partially through the hard work of a man that probably murdered his wife. I love the film and don't think any of that rises to a level that makes this film pr*blemat*c, but it's a weird confluence.
This movie takes me back to a time of Pot and LSD Free Love and The Beatles, The Tate LaBianca Murders and Puberty. Along with Awareness to deal with it all. Great Video...
But why is Quentin Tarantino obsessed with feet? In all of his movies and especially in this one there are so many close ups of feet or feet are prominent in the scene. It's distracting and there is no point. Yes, people have feet.
Actress was on I think jimmy kimmel show where she says was reluctant to show her feet because all her tears as dancer left her feet with twisted toes. I think he mentions about feet fetish and hairy armpits.
Well, I suppose it depends on how one looks at it. She's not a heroine insofar as taking serious and grave action that changes how things turn out, no. But I see her as being a heroine in the way that she's positive and optimistic and brings a much more cheerful outlook to the world around her. It's always seemed to me that she's about as positive as she can be in the world in which she lives.
@@aaronjames5276 being positive is admirable. But she is forever linked to Charles mansion. It would have been cool to change the narrative. Think about his other movie inglorious bastards. Imagine if the Jewish girl wasn't involved in the ending burning of the Nazis. It would feel like a missed opportunity. Tarintino often has those that are the "victim" get revenge. The bride, the Jewish girl, Django, so why not Tate. To add insult to injury Tarintino silences the voice of Tate. She is just a pretty face in her own story.
I’m not a Tarantino fan. I respect his movies, I can see why people like them. They just never interest me very much. That said I loved Once upon a time in Hollywood and ironically I just saw it last night.
DirtyDinner24 see to me it might be his best. I just don’t care about his others. I don’t care to rewatch them (though im planning to after once upon just to see if my opinion has changed) and I don’t own any of them. I want to own Once Upon, but you have every right to your opinion. I know I’m in the minority
I think the director’s frustration at the idea that movies may cause violence really shows here. I’m sure because of the views he is described to have that hippies were his actual enemies, and so in his movie he equates them to actual murderers... I think it’s reaching and no connections are made to get us to buy in at all. The people worried about violence are the violent ones? Just labeling a historic murderers as hippies makes it true? I like his movies but here I feel he failed to effectively communicate with the audience.
You can't due to not being 72. It would have to be very long to explain the build up. I love this movie and I really now have more ........... for Tarantino.
I was so tense waiting for the end of this movie then it took a complete left turn ! What a trip. I had made a deliberate effort to get no spoilers ahead of time
People forget that six days after Tate murders, Woodstock started - an iconic four days of peace and music. Even in old Woodstock documentary footage, they zoom in on a Tate headline on the front of one of the newspapers in the town of Bethel, NY. I now wonder if the Manson murders indirectly contributed to the vibe of Woodstock. Between Vietnam and the timing of the Manson tragedy, maybe there was a greater subconscious desire than ever for peace and love....and just a world that made sense...even if just for a few days. That said, you know it's a great movie when you are left wanting more of the characters. I am left wanting Cliff and Rick's stories to continue. Did Rick go on to work with Polanski? Did new success for Rick allow he and Cliff to stay together? Was Cliff's time as a stunt man over because of his injury? I am also left wanting more of their back stories. ....And at the same time, I also like the idea of it being forever a mystery left to the imagination. We just get a glimpse into these guys' lives, and that's it.
"and who are you?" "i'm the devil, and i'm here to do the devils work" "nah it was something dumber than that, it was like... rex.... yeah rex" "god shoot him tex" "aaah tex right"
This film is one of the main examples of why I feel context matters in films. If you had no idea about the 60s,the affect the Manson Murders had and knowledge of the films of that era you won't probably enjoy it as much or understand the nuance of ending. Which I why understand the people you say they didn't like this film as much as Tarantinos others but for me personally as someone who does know about the era the movie portrays and is a huge fan of the films of that time I enjoyed it immensely and almost teared up at the ending. I don't really think it's far to say we should ignore external factors like context since all films are personal experiences so it's meant to affect everyone differently. With the case of this film it definetly benefitted from it.
This was exactly my experience. I didnt know about the murders or understand the random characters after watching the movie. Now it all makes sense and I have a much deeper appreciation for it!
Yea, I went to watch the movie but I had no clue about the history. So it confused me that this movie is an award-winning one before watching this explanation
the context is everything ... Tarantino loves the 60's and has done it justice. the Manson family does not make the massacre that unfortunately made them famous and that precipitates everything in a nightmare and even if you don't see it in the movie, Altamont was a second Woodstock full of peace & love .....
@@sinyitsang9598 It is amazing to me that so many people aren't familiar with the Manson story. But those of who do are getting up there and the young'uns don't know a lot of things.
I remember seeing the movie with my dad and how happy I was to see her live (Sharon Tate ) but then as soon as the credits began and as soon as the lights turned on I felt kind of depressed because I remembered that’s not how it happened that’s not what really happened that night
YES. That is exactly the way it went for me. I also felt glad that Sharon had lived and after it was over and it had settled with me, I felt kind of a profound sadness. And that's kind of interesting because the real Sharon Tate was apparently a wonderful woman and her friends considered her a ray of sunshine. That's one reason her death and the randomness of it has been carried in our minds and hearts. It also, for me, made me consider the events in real life that may not have ever happened had Tate lived. Polanskis later arrest for sexual assault, in particular.
Me too. I was cheering Brad Pitt when he annihilated the Manson crew but after it ended truth and reality set in. I thought about how they were brutally murdered. So sad!
Both deserved it for their own reasons. But overall it would be also Forest Gump for me . But Brad Pitt? I do not get what was that special about this peformance. For me it feels like not Brad Pitt got the award it was the Character he played, it could be anybody who played that role. But for me his charcter gave me no oscar vibes i would rather give Samuel Jackson an oscar for his role in Pulp Fiction.
@Migalors Darwin kinda overrating yourself, there, as a film critic. If even after seeing this video explaining the depth of his craft, you're still like, "nah", ok then.
@@migalorsdarwin1930 Yeah I agree, half of his movies are awesome but the other half are crap. All glorify swearing and violence which appeal to younger generations. Best way to attract new audience however.
I see Cliff Booth as the real engine of the movie and the force who was used to "change history", as QT loves to do. I saw it this way... Cliff's three primary scenes are: One, the dream sequence up on the roof (where he stands up to Bruce Lee and wrecks the supreme aura of his legend, WHILE ALSO laying eyes on Charles Manson getting out of the truck. This was foreshadowing that Cliff would wreck the evil legacy of the Manson gang in the finale). Second, his trip to the ranch. (Which I also think is a dream sequence because if you watch his hand gesture to PussyCat over the steering wheel, I think he actually waved her off and didn't pick her up once again. Hence, the Ranch scene was also a dream sequence). C'mon, everybody in the theatre was terrified that the cult zombies would take him out as that Ranch scene slowly crept along. And just like when he stood up to Bruce, he owned that entire scene and made the gang look like a pack of limp losers. Third, the finale. The acid cigarette permits entrance of this also being a dream sequence, with Cliff brutally dishing out divine justice to these murderous pigs and sparing the lives of Sharon, her baby and friends. NOW - notice that in all threes of these crucial scenes, where is Rick? He is either acting like a cowboy on set, or happily floating in the pool with his headphones on. LDC's scenes are some of his best ever - but I still contend Cliff is the main character. Cliff is changing history while Rick is acting, pretending or wishing too. And who benefits in the end? As Cliff is loaded into the Ambulance (as the savior archetype), Rick strolls up the driveway and greets pregnant Sharon and her friends. As they ascend to the mansion, an ascent purchased by Cliff's sacrifice, it looked almost symbolic of passing through the pearly gates and up into heaven - where death doesn't happen and Rick's selfish dream of no longer being a has-been are no more. All of this made possible by.......Cliff Booth.
You went a little overboard with the dream sequence thing. By doing so, you reduce a brilliant allegory to mere "wish it were" fantasy, imho. However, you do have a good creative sense & you write well.
Ray Davison Thanks Ray. Watching the Oscars now and disappointed QT didn’t win Best Original Screenplay. Really happy for Brad! Hoping for more trophy’s tonight. But why would a dream sequence cancel out allegory? I think they fit beautifully....
@@raydavison4288 I think the dream sequence hypothesis still has merits tho. In the end, the story is historical revisionism. So by making Cliff's action only happens in his dream, it adds another layer that blurred the story (of the movie) and the actual happenstance further.
The Bounty Law sequence at the beginning foreshadows the ending : Rick : .... "Not when there's 3 of them and 1 of me". This is what his stuntman Cliff faced, once again doing Rick's fights and stunts and his dirty work. Brilliant storytelling....
Manson was, by his own admission NOT a hippie. He was a pre-boomer ex con white supremacist who preyed on damaged young women runaways who wanted to be hippies. Now, I am quite the critic of the reckless nihilistic excess of the whole quasi hippie thing, but Manson was more Aryan nation than Tim Leary. BTW-FYI: I am from the same area as Manson's mothers family & knew quite a few of his aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., and they were almost all lowlife drunks, thieves, & layabouts who would be meth-heads or oxy-contin addicts today. Again, FYI: Manson was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. His father's identity is unknown & his alcoholic mother once sold him for a case of beer. if I judge by his relatives, he would have probably called his father, "Uncle Daddy". There's a lot of good people in Appalachia, but there's also a bunch of atavistic cro-magnons & Manson's relatives are of the second type.
Yeah that’s something that really throws me off about this film. Why did he decide to label all the murderers as hippies? Just because hippies are worried about the violence in his films? It’s a huge jump and I don’t think there was any skill in the connection other than the idea upsetting him greatly. Just felt like a tantrum.
I know this is an unpopular opinion, but the little boy who grew up to be Charles Manson never really had a chance. We'd have a lot less crime if children were cared for.
I am a huge Leo fan, I was waiting this movie because he was starring in it, but holy shit, Brad Pitt really stole the show!!! Yes, he should take the Oscar 👍
Brad's character was awesome but leo's ACTING takes the cake Like the meltdown scenes or when he was acting in his spaghetti western, he was great Brad Pitt didn't have much variety in his acting performance, he basically had about 2 emotions the whole movie, he's just the cool badass guy and a great friend to rick dalton (and i'm not saying this to belittle him, his character is literally my favorite, just disagreeing with your statment about him winning an oscar for that performance)
When Tate died (it was a different time) it was unbelievable for me. Actors don't get killed or even die. Never see a real person die on TV . So younger people, who are not 72, may not will get the feel of this movie. You just can't. But I can feel the present but having history in my back pocket gives me a heads up. I really hope some day (you) reading this, see a movie that takes you back to happier and younger times. I really love this movie.
In the end the "hero" Rick burns up one of the Manson girls who isn't even threatening him. It was his stunt double who did all the hard work, but the actor gets the glory.
Having read all the books about the Manson family when I was in High School a million years ago, I absolutely love the ending of this movie! This movie truly has a Hollywood ending that I wish was the real ending to the Manson saga!
This was one of the better explanations of a movie that you will find. Awesome detail. Best movie of the year by a country mile. Pitt, Robbie, and DiCaprio were fantabulous to steal a word from a stupid movie. But the real star of the movie was Brandy. A special thank you to QT for altering the reality of one of the saddest days in America history in an extremely badass way. Of all of his great movies and he has made a ton of them this one is at the very top.
It was fantastic, I became anxious as I recognised the horrific events that were going to happen and was completely overcome by Tarantino's ending, superbly done and thought all the actors were out of this world
That would've been satisfying as all hell, but it ruins the concept of Sharon being this almost inhuman presence, a symbol of peace. As incredible as the idea of Sharon Tate and her friends killing the Mansons is, the final battle isn't truly about just being cathartic. It's almost eerie, after, when you hear Sharon's disembodied voice over the intercom and you're reminded of what really happened.
I was hoping they'd go back to the ranch and kill Charles Manson and burn the place down or something. I like to think that's what Cliff did after getting out of the hospital.
