The tards writing these articles wanted Brad Pitt and Dicaprio's characters to be killed so the Manson family could succeed in murdering Sharon Tate and her unborn child. I'm glad this movie opened big, it's triggering all the people I hate. Thank God for Tarantino, the last legit Hollywood director.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/once-a-time-hollywood-quentin-tarantinos-violence-women-problem-1227406
It does seem odd, at least with regard to this one particular movie, because the "violence against women" in question is against women who, in real life, ignored an eight-month pregnant woman's plea to "kill me, but don't kill my baby" and proceeded to stab her (and her stomach with baby) scores of times. These women also stabbed other women(and men) both at the Polanski/Tate home that night and a few nights later when they killed totally random victims Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. (The coup de grace with Leno was to plunge a large fork into his belly and to leave it sticking out.)
I think the only term to use for whoever wrote this Hollywood Reporter article is: uneducated.
While I don't agree with your premise that this article was promoting Manson's family to succeed in their killing, this article was a load of crap for other reasons. Most disgusting is the insinuation that Tarantino promoted violence against women because the movie portrays the would-be Manson family killers as being the victims. This is where the Me Too movement goes Bat-Crap Crazy.
shareSPOILER
This is an article, not a film review, but it is interesting to realize that we now live in a society in which the following sentence will be published in such an article about a movie:
BEGIN:
In Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Tarantino draws a world where two white, cisgender, heterosexual males (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt) were able to protect Tate through a series of chance.
END
It speaks for itself. I guess there's no going back to just discussing a story being...a story. And just about "people."
Did I say it was a film review?
shareA lot of Liberals were rooting for Manson back in 1969 too. Including the Obama's bosom buddies, Bernadine Dohrn and her husband Bill Ayers. https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2017/11/19/charles-manson-a-villain-in-death-served-as-a-counterculture-hero-in-1969/
shareThat's a load of bull crap. You may be hypnotized by the Idiot President, but no one rooted for Manson killing people outside the Manson family itself. And to add on, Manson wasn't a Liberal, he was a racist who was trying to flame a race war.
You unfortunately are an idiot who has been totally mind-effed by the Fox News Generation.
Hollywoodreporter disapproved of the Manson women being dispatched by the heroes which would have caused Tate to be murdered in this movie.
shareYour logic is failing. The writer of this article disapproved of the Manson women being killed because it saw it as violence against women. This is ME TOO gone bat-crap crazy. I would say they would have been against them killing Tate as it would also be violence against women.
shareYou can google it anywhere. Bernadine Dohrn, wife of Obama's mentor, Bill Ayers, said this: “Dig it: first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!”
45 years later, she was dining at Obama's White House.
Your blind denial of modern Liberalism's distasteful roots is amusing.
You got this from Breitbart, dumbass. They have no credibility whatsoever.
shareHow about C-Span? In this video interview she is trying to make it seem like she was 'joking' when she said it.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4460430/professor-bernardine-dohrn-remarks-manson-family-remarks
Is the New York Times Liberal enough for you?
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/weekinreview/02decurtis.html
"The Weathermen dig Charles Manson,” declared Bernardine Dohrn, "
You really are a waste of flesh. You site 2 sources that point to the same interview of a woman who clearly states she was being ironic and sarcastic when she made the remarks.
You on the otherhand are a political flamethrower who is trying to attribute these stupid remarks to an entire class of people. You are an ASS who must spend your days masturbating to Sean Hannity.
Like she is actually going to admit "Yeah, I was all for Manson and what he was doing."
Why do you take her denial seriously, when you consider remarks conservatives made decades ago to be valid today?
As far as the question of who is a waste of flesh, I'd say that answer is obvious, and all evidence points to you. If you had been born in 1948 instead of 1958 you probably would have been right there at Spahn Ranch worshiping Charlie with the rest of the hippie burnouts.