"Love letter to Tarantino"...

Embarrassing.

I always say you get from a movie what you bring to it.

You didnt 'get' the movie for whatever reason. Nothing wrong with saying you didn't like a movie.

But when a person invents a whole concept around why they didn't like it, I find that bizarre.

It's essentially their way of saying 'i didnt get this movie. But it cant be me, cant be my fault surely? Better come up with something to throw people off the scent'.

Far too many people expecting a typical Tarantino movie, and then getting butthurt when they don't get what they want.

Strange post
I saw OUATIH three times and going back for a fourth

what 80s movie did you watch at 2 in the morning with your imaginary GF?

Absolutely agree with you. The movie was garbage.

I like QT. He is a master in creating climatic situations. All his films are collage of short tension building scenes with great climax. But he failed miserably in OUATIH.

Half of the film seemed like it emerged out of QT's lack of assessment about the impact of the various lousy scenes that he wrote and rest of it was simply masturbation to his likes of B-movie westerns. He didn't care about the audience and made a film for himself. With absolutely not providing any prior information/introduction about Manson family and Charlie's psychosis/motives, he expected that the entire world would be knowing about the murders on Cielo Drive and decided to make them feel happy by altering the history just because he couldn't think of anything else. Lame.

This is just another story repeated after 'The Ballad of Buster Scruggs'. Many of the critics & fans are afraid to share their honest reviews as they thought 'Hey, its a QT movie after all, may be I missed something. Instead of making myself look like a fool by giving it a low rating, let me rave about it as a piece of art'.

OUATIH was absolutely not entertaining except some bits of cinematography & acting. I posted a thread 'Those who loved this film' asking fans to explain what they liked. Just look at the comments. They are laughable. Cars & driving, Western themed nostalgia, Bruce Lee scene etc. and such lame aspects are the reasons they loved.....I mean loved as a masterpiece; whereas the movie is 4/10 at its best. Infact, OUATIH had nothing extra-ordinary. Its an ordinary soap opera with no plot, no tension, no character study and not even a great style over substance.

Scenes such as Steve McQueen's appearance and his comments about Tate were lame as hell. Roman Polanski was shown as a joker. The long scene where Tates is walking through an LA street and to a cinema, whereas most of the time the camera spanned over her legs was like 'Ok...so, she's just walking right? Anything special, am I missing something? Is her sexy legs that QT liked and want to show us?'. And of course the Spahn Ranch scene; only simpletons would get a sense of dread in this part.

May be QT wanted to capture the L.A. of 69. But frankly, he didn't. Most of the scenes were around studios, Leo's car & the ranch. If one really wanted to create such a Nostalgia and show the 60s L.A., he/she can do a lot. A lot.

So most of all these BLAND scenes were just FILLERS. Fillers to pack and wrap up QT's lame vision. None of the scenes where impactful and QT failed in his assessment. So the movie is a collage of such empty and lame moments.

Thoughts and prayers.