Margot Robbie is a MOVIE STAR in “Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood”

[quote]If you have any questions, ask.

I think I'll just see it myself on Saturday.

I wouldn't mind Pitt finally getting a Best Actor award and Robbie Best Supporting. Leo can have a nom but he won his already. Anyone else outstanding? Can 't wait to see it (and Tarantino has been boring me of late but this looks perfect).

R2 I like Tarantino films but I too find them all similar and boring.

This one was the most different, with a lot of quiet and subtle moments. Brad and Leo work well together because there is a balance there with Brad being more laid back in his style while Leo is more showy and over the top. It balanced and worked beautifully.

WARNING- Lena Dunham is in this. I almost barfed when she shows up on screen. Thank God her parts like 7 minutes.

Luke Perry and “Bruce Lee” each only have one scene.

Al Pacino has 2.

This is cool to hear. I'm glad Margot pulled it off. She really does have an glamorous, old Hollywood quality about her. What did you think of Pitt and DiCaprio' s performances?

Whoops just saw r3. I should have hit refresh.

I like that Lena plays Abigail Folger, though, one of the victims. Almost seems inspired casting.

And, yeah, after "I, Tonya", she could do no wrong with me. Robbie is a great actress but also a great Movie Star (not easy to do) and she seems to be handling it all expertly. The opposite of a mess.

R4 Brad Pitt gives one of the best of his career. I feel he always leave parts of himself in the role but here it worked, especially after all he’s been through with Angelina. He’s overall quiet and had this aggressiveness and manliness to him thats hot here, but he’s cool and fun and a good friend.

SPOILER

He killed his wife and got away with it, and is a struggling stunt man now because people don’t want to work with him because they believe he killed his wife although he got off. So Rick (Leo) used his pull to keep him around on his jobs so he works. Cliff (Pitt) lives alone in a trailer with his dog and is pretty much Ricks only friend (and Vice versa) and works for Rick for extra money. Rick uses him like an assistant at times to help his friend out.

Leo gives another showy and loud performance that the public will eat up. He screams, he cries, he laughs, he throws things etc. he does it all in a loud way with an accent. Lol.

R6 nope. Lena plays a part of the Hippie Cult. She’s not Folger.

Oh shit, sorry, i could swear I read that when she joined the cast. I stand corrected.

(I wonder if something went wrong and she was bumped over to that dinky hippie role. I will do some research. I can't see her getting along with Tarantino; does he represent that shit she hates in the era of MeToo?)

R9 I think you’re right in that was what was said but it’s not the case. Folger has like 2 minutes of screen time and is beautiful in the movie. Lena is one of the main people in the cult when Pitt stops by to drop off this young hot hippie chick he sees all the time and are flirty with each other. He finally is going the same direction as her and gives her a ride and it’s the cult.

Her brother is hot....

R10 her role as a cult member is much larger than Folger.

And the ending isn’t what you would think it is.

That's actually good to hear. I hated the thought that this was the inevitable conclusion. Like waiting for Dorothy Stratten to be shot in "Star 80" for two hours, not much fun.

R15 agree.

I don’t wanna spoil, but the ending is very... fantasy

Margot is absolutely gorgeous in the movie stills. She's shaping up to be a very versatile actress. And I actually prefer a more mature looking DiCaprio and Pitt, although that might be an unpopular sentiment around here. I want to wait until the film has been out for a little while to see it in theater. I have had too many movies ruined by audiences who will not shut the fuck up for even a second.

Margot was great. Brad was great. Leo was great and there was a little girl who had several scenes with Leo who is just wonderful. I'm not the biggest Tarantino fan but I loved this. Very much in the vein of Inglorious Bastards in terms of the bending of history.

R17 I was so lucky that my theater was silent throughout the entire movie! Beginning to end! No cell phone lights or nothing. People were into it and remained silent minus when they laughed.

Normally I have people yapping away or teens being annoying or kids and babies there when they shouldn’t but not today for this. Was ALL ADULTS and all MATURE adults that wanted to see the movie.

The little girl had no facial expressions but her line deliveries were amazing.

Movie star? Please provide box office receipts for this assertion . Now can we focus on me, I, myself, and only moi please?

R21 Julia, nothing but love, but only female movie star? Ha! I beg to differ!

And I am the REAL America’s Sweetheart, and even speak more than one language, unlike you.

This was one of my FAVORITE scenes in the movie, when Poloski and Tate go to the Playboy Mansion!

Margot looked striking in that yellow and you could not keep your eyes off of her! The scene is focused on her, and you see her, yet she has no lines. The dialogue is all about her through Steve McQueen and someone else, watching her dance and discussing her love life.

It was wonderfully shot and Robbie was amazing. She looked gorgeous dancing with Michelle Phillips.

All she knows how to do is take off her clothes

Polanski*

This movie was boring and Margot did nothing.

If Pitt gets nominated, it will be as Best Supporting Actor.

I would think he has a good shot at the award, and he will almost certainly get nominated. I would expect Margot Robbie will also get nominated as Best Supporting Actress. Both of them are actors the Academy respects because they've pushed themselves hard over the years to do things people of their beauty are often unable to do.

Margot has light eyes, which most feel is more beautiful, but she looked more striking with the brown contacts to play Sharon. Her face looked strikingly beautiful.

Brad Pitt was 100% lead and has his own story aside from Leo. They are co-leads 100%. Most of their scenes are together with each having some separate that shows more of them as an individual character vs friends. However, he would be places as Supporting to get him the Oscar nom for sure.

Margot was lead also but because she had less scenes and was given so few lines despite being on screen so much she can be supporting, but her story was its own movie within a movie. She never was in the same scene as them minus when they see her in the car with her husband and the final moments of the final scene, where Pitt was absent. All her scenes were separate and its own “film”.

She's pretty, but her acting sucks and she's boring in interviews.

The big question that of course every Datalounger wants to know the answer to is of course: how are Lens Dunham and Rumer Willis in THEIR roles?

Charlie would never have a fatty in his harem. Besides, they were all starving and on dope; a chubby girl like Lens wouldn't make sense.

R32 she was wearing a very loose dress. She was fine at playing a hippie.

Just watched it again and she’s lovely. I loved her presence in this.

I’m torn about the ending. I’m not sure what QT was getting at. Like... wouldn’t it be awesome if the evil hippies had been killed instead? I feel like that does a disservice to the victims because that isn’t what happened. I’m relieved I didn’t have to sit thru a savage re-enactments of the murders as they happened. It would’ve been way too upsetting to watch Margot as Sharon butchered.

I love the film, and her performance.

R36 same here. Margot was incandescent.

R35 I am torn about the ending also but i liked it also. The set up for the final act shows her final day living and what she did that day with her friends. You’re waiting for that awful moment to come, but in the end, the killers go into the wrong house and end up not being able to kill her and her friends.

That’s also why I said this is fantasy. Like a “what if?”

When Rumer pulled up to the gate as Joanna Pettet in her big sunglasses I thought she looked more like Tate than Margot. Then she took the sunglasses off and most certainly did not look like Tate. Still, a good look for her.

Rumer looked very pretty in this.

And Margot looks even more beautiful it the brown contacts vs her blue eyes.

Emile Hirsch looked hot in this

Some of the cameos were legit surprising. Kurt Russell and Luke Perry? No clue.

Rumer as Joanna friggin' Pettet???

I love Margot, but doesn't she have very few lines in this movie? I seem to recall early criticism for that.

I zoned out when Lena would open her fat mouth.

She has no business sharing a scene with Brad Pitt.

R43 ironically that’s part of what makes her performance feel so special.

Margo only looks good at underweight and with very low body fat. Otherwise her head looks too heavy and her facial features look vulgar. I don‘t know how long she can keep her weight low.

R12 He looked hot only in this pic. Otherwise he looks very femme and his facial features look uneven. Not ideal for an actor ...

She was very young while in Neighbors

R48 Being young is an asset, being fat isn‘t ...

Brad Pitt stole the film. He was brilliant.

This filmed sucked ass!

The film was fantastic.

I saw it today and I enjoyed it. I kind of wish that the main characters torched Spahn ranch on fire with Lena's character trapped in a building.

It was kind of dull. The ending was way over the top. It was laugh out loud cartoonish.

Were pit bulls around in the 60s? I think a Doberman or Rottweiler would have been a more time appropriate choice.

Timothy Olyphant looked hot.

Margot's publicist or deranged auntie gets an "F" for being obvious.

Margot is...fine, but it's a small role. She ain't getting awards traction for her big scene which consists of having dirty feet in a movie theater and gleefully watching the real Sharon Tate in a movie.

I was surprised they didn’t doctor that film footage to insert Robbie.

Juxtaposition with the real Sharon shows her and Robbie don’t look that much alike.

I really liked this film. Of course, the tv/film references of the period were familiar to me, I graduated HS in 1968, was a burgeoning hippie. The ten years between 1968-1980 were some of the most impactful years of my life.

Robbie looked beautiful. The role didn't call for more than that, and a wide eyed state of awe over the circumstances of her seemingly charmed life.

I thought Leo's character was a real send up of the emotional landscape of an insecure, self absorbed actor. He was good.

Pitt just lived in his character, taking things as they come, not very reflective. He walks into situations that are frightening, potentially deadly, and really doesn't break a sweat. Bone deep confidence that he can handle things. He seems to just go with things, but really he is in command because he is prepared and able to do what it takes. Really, nerdy goofball Tarantino's fantasy of what a real cool guy is like.

R57 here

Forgot to add, Pitt looks as good as any 50 year old could hope for.

He probably looks better. He was roughened up and made to look scruffy for the part.

Robbie looked beautiful. And she was lovely in her scenes, just floating through the film.

I liked that you see the real Tate and they don’t look as different than some claim, also Robbie is prettier.

Hey, if Rachel W. can win Supporting for "Constant Gardner" (talk about floating through a movie), Robbie can. Both are strong actors with a lot of goodwill built up in the industry.

[quote]Robbie is prettier.

Welcome to Datalounge, Helen Keller.

I'll see it but she was terrible in Mary Queen of Scots although the movie itself didn't help being so glaringly amateurish. The only part I liked was the visual of when she came down with the "pocs". I couldn't even get to the end.

Part of what works here is how she’s used. Tate is portrayed as someone who is Angelic and almost surreal. You wonder if she’s actually there or just an angel floating because she’s always happy, dancing, looking gorgeous and barely speaks. Just smiling.

I found that interesting. I don’t know what everyone else is bitching about with her “not speaking”.

That adds a charm to her performance.

I still say Margo looks more like Michelle Phillips than Sharon Tate.

I can't believe how much i loved it. It was sort of a love letter to the exploitation films he ripped off all his life and a way of sparing Sharon the hell of her final hours.

Poor Sharon. I can’t help but think of what fear went through her before being butchered that night.

Ugh.

I also fear some sick lunatic will fall obsessed with the beautiful Margot Robbie and want to recreate that murder with her. That would make the ultimate full circle film.

Margot was the wrong choice to play Sharon Tate.

R68 I initially wasn't too sure but Margot is getting rave reviews and I think she captures her general look and vibe from what I've seen. Who would you have cast? Just curious. Because there are very few modern actresses who even slightly resemble her.

A good plastic surgeon can (and no doubt will) refine the coarser features on Robbie's face. But she'll still have to starve herself if she wants to work.

Bunch of ancient fruity gay men on here acting like Sharon Tate was some great beauty and iconic actress? She was a slutty looking chick with a not bad face and short legs. Couldn't act. Tate is famous only for her dead body.

Margot Robbie on the contrary is a very good actress. Arresting and different in every role. One to encourage and cheer on. Because she's not Jennifer Lawrence or Amy Adams. She's a generically attractive cameleon with a far from ordinary talent. Robbie does a fine job of what Tarantino wanted from her. Sharon Tate is more a mood than a real character in the film. Tarantino is infatuated with the murder mood. As in life, Sharon Tate was little more than pretty.

*chameleon

[quote]She was absolutely beautiful and delightful in every scene she was in. She comes off very sympathetic and sweet and pretty and feminine... Absolutely LOVELY.

So that's what makes a female movie star? It sounds more like the smiling hostess of a nice brunch. Can you image a male star being heralded as a "movie star" because of those mild qualities? No.

[quote]...the direction was interesting because Leo and Brad have a lot to say while with her, Tarantino decided to show her a lot but not have her speak too much. It was odd.

It's actually not odd at all. It's par for the course. That's the kind of limited role most actresses are handed - where the contribution is primarily visual.

R71 She absolutely was an iconic and rare beauty and an up coming star. I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

[quote]r74 She absolutely was an iconic and rare beauty and an up coming star. I don't know how anyone can dispute that.

Look, Sharon Tate was one of the most beautiful women who ever made movies, and everyone she met seemed to love her, but she showed no discernable acting talent.

She probably would have retired after she had her child. If she came back she would have stayed in undemanding fluff and made a living, but it's not like anyone was breaking down her door to do important films. She especially wouldn't have been suited to the grittier reality of films in the 1970s era.

Quite possibly true, R75, and possibly not. One could have heard much the same thing said about Ann-Margret back then. She managed to overcome it, although it took years and a lot of work. Sharon would have had top-notch director* Polanski on her side, a considerable asset. You're right though, upper class women retired from working when they got pregnant back then. Most didn't wait until they had kids, they retired when they got married, if they went to work at all.

*Yes, he's a child raping scumbag and he's a brilliant film director.

Sharon Tate is obviously not upper class if you've ever seen her sister endlessly fucking her corpse for a buck and some more attention. They were just working class women and no doubt Sharon fucked and sucked who she had to to get some attention and leverage. Terrible actress, quite pretty. A lot of those women looked like her back in the sixties. Probably more than any other decade of actresses, they looked so slutty and fake. The big hair, wigs and fake lashes, pushed up tits and short skirts - mostly on women who didn't look good in them. All of them blonde. Lecherous gross co stars. Julie Christie, Jane Fonda, Mia Farrow, Shirley Maclaine, Sophia Loren and Deneuve are the ones remembered for a reason.

Polanski did nothing wrong for his time and place (quaaludes, a young girl who wanted a part, butt fucking at Jack's) but he was never an aristocrat. Sharon had big eyes and a flat face and very big chin. I guess she was very pretty by 1960s particular standards, but she is nothing special to look at in younger people's eyes. She looks like a butch Twiggy. Nothing upper class about her and no chance to "retire." Who writes this fiction R76? Her husband was always fucking other women. Not likely much would have become of Sharon Tate. She was no Stella Stevens, Connie Stevens or even a Carol Lynley. Zero talent.

Ann Margret was not beautiful either. Sexy yes, but again with that sharp jaw and no lips. Kind of a cocksuckers way of talking. Why didn't women have lips in the sixties? Before my time. Mia Farrow and Audrey Hepburn were very pretty and fat Liz was still neck up sexy. What's with mistaking all these slutty looking women for beauties? A LOT of very old GAY men must post here.

R76 " She would have had a top notch director on her side". Very true. And Ann Margret is a good comparison.

Tate's talent.

[quote]r76 One could have heard much the same thing said about Ann-Margret back then.

No. AM was animated, she showed emotion from her very first film. It may not have been highly skilled emotion, but it was energetic emotion.

Tate was docile, passive, through and through. There was nothing expressed beyond mild, generic effects like "sweetness," or "sweet sadness." Basically, she was not exhibitionistic enough to enjoy being watched ... to perform.

Shallow performance, shallow movie.

Let’s not get carried away.

I feel people claiming Margot was miscast haven’t seen the movie. They’re just speaking

Sharon Tate was not all that and couldn’t act. And she wasn’t a household name or recognizable face until she was murdered.

The New Yorker didn't seem to like it either.

The New Yorker is in the minority.

from review:

[quote]The movie’s most prominent female character, Sharon Tate (Robbie), is given even less substance; she is depicted as an ingenuous Barbie doll who ditzily admires herself onscreen. In “Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood,” Tarantino reserves the glory moments of actorly allure, swagger, and charisma for male actors.

You wonder how Tarantino would depict any gay characters. I doubt they're his cup of tea, either.

I think his portrayal of Tate was on point. She was ditzy and lighthearted.

While her husband was cheating on her while she was prregnant?

The film doesn’t delve into that. This wasn’t a Sharon Tate biopic.

Geez, she doesn’t even die here.

But she doesn't live as any kind of rounded human beings with anything to offer beyond her dewy appearance, either.

[quote]r88 This wasn’t a Sharon Tate biopic.

Because that wouldn't be worthy of his time, I guess.

R84 The majority isn't always right. Especially now.

[quote]I think his portrayal of Tate was on point. She was ditzy and lighthearted

The scene where she’s talking to Rick Dalton in the speaker phone, sounded exactly like Sharon Tate. I was shocked to see Nicholas Hammond play the movie director, he was wonderful. I really hope Brad Pitt gets an Oscar nomination. The finale was exceptional and a surprise, it was something I didn’t expect.

[quote]Leo gives another showy and loud performance that the public will eat up. He screams, he cries, he laughs, he throws things etc. he does it all in a loud way with an accent. Lol.

The scene where Leo is in his dressing room throwing a tantrum after forgetting his lines was brilliant, because it was hilarious and sad at the same time. The only negative thing I have to say was some of the scenes where Leo is filming a western was a little too long. Otherwise, I loved the rest of the movie.

From the New Yorker:

[bold]”Quentin Tarantino’s Obscenely Regressive Vision of the Sixties” [/bold]

Now, that’s what we need ... a return to celebrating a time when women were mere objects, blacks were humiliated, and gays were nowhere to be seen.

Yee -haw!

R77, Ouch. Kind of harsh, don't you think? What did Sharon ever do to you?

Margot was phenomenal

Doing what? Smiling?

She captured Tate’s presence and manners.

Brad Pitt will get an Oscar nomination for this. It's really a leading role, but they want to make the argument he's supporting because he's Di Caprio's sidekick. If he goes up for supporting he will almost definitely win the Oscar.

Everyone wants to give Pitt and Oscar because he's well-liked, and people also wouldn't mind sticking it to that crazy bitch Angelina one more time by giving her ex a big award.

If Sharon Tate had lived, she'd have divorced Roman, who'd already checked out of the marriage months before, and married her ex Jay Sebring, who was still madly in love with her (and died protecting her). Jay was well on his way to becoming what Paul Mitchell became, and probably would have made a fortune marketing his hair products in the 70s and 80s. Sharon would have become a wealthy Beverly Hills matron and lived out her life in peace and luxury.

The only modern actress who resembles Sharon to my eyes is Rose Byrne, though she's too old for the part now.

Many people, myself included would be happy to see Pitt win an Oscar for this. He and Leo are Travolta and Samuel Jackson iconic in this. Tarantino gives men great shit to work with. It's unfair to say that he doesn't portray women well or give them empowering parts to play. (Uma, Lucy, Vivica, Pam, Amanda Plummer/Jennifer Jason L/Kruger etc.) Sharon Tate is portrayed quite accurately. A sweet, dumb pretty woman, hippy light chick. The movie IS sexually regressive because it's California in the late sixties, duh. I admire Tarantino's guts.

He is obviously a kinky son of a bitch but so are Hitchcock, DePalma, Scorsese and Spielberg.

They don’t just want him to have an Oscar because he’s “liked”. It’s because he’s one of the biggest movie stars of all time and RESPECTED.

He also has an Oscar for Producing “12 Years a Slave”

Producing Oscars aren't quite the same thing, though, especially for actors. Hey, I want Pitt to get an Oscar too, and I think much worse actors have one. But let's not pretend it's NOT a popularity contest.

R100 is blind

Of course YMMV, R104 No need to be a cunt about it. But I didn't make that image; it was already up online, so I'm not the only one who sees the resemblance.

I thought Margot Robbie looked more than enough like Sharon Tate to be fine in the role.

Dataloungers always want EXACT lookalikes, and that's really rare in life. Claire Foy does not look much at all like Queen Elizabeth I, but she was terrific in the part on "The Crown" (she won both an Emmy and a Golden Globe); Olivia Colman should be great too, even though she doesn't look much like queen. Anthony Hopkins looked nothing like Richard Nixon, but he morphed himself to seem just like him, without even a fake nose.

Sorry: I meant to type Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth I.

I have massive respect for Margot. The girl could have easily kept playing roles like the Duchess in Wolf of Wall Street. Instead she works hard to prove to people that she is a real actress. Those Aussie chicks don’t play around when they get a shot in Hollywood.

What’s crazy to me is that Margot is by all standard hot but average at the same time. I think that really helps her. We can see what guys would like her, while seeing her as some normal girl from the sticks. She can be average or gorgeous.

R71, You know you don't have to tear Sharon down to build Margot up, don't you? Sharon and Margot can both be beautiful and talented at the same time. No, she wasn't the most talented actress alive and had no delusions that she was. In fact, she was once quoted as saying "I don't fool myself. I can't see myself doing Shakespeare." But she did an adequate job in most of the roles she was cast for.

And from all accounts she was a genuinely kind, humble person. She never let the attention go to her head. I think that plays a role just as much as her fame and beauty. How much she loved everyone and cared about others. That makes her early death all the more sad.

I see Jaime Pressley whenever I look at Margot Robbie.

Jaime looks great in that photo R110. Robbie doesn't look like Tony Harding either, but she effectively portrayed her and then some..... Acting is not about being a look-alike. You can call an agency for that.

Any Price Is Right or car show model can pass for Sharon Tate.

Since when does anyone cast people that look like the people being portrayed? Almost never.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

R113 I said more than once she wasn’t that pretty and that they’re romanticizing her as a whole.

She was meh looking. Robbie is far prettier.

I think she was gorgeous. And everyone always talks about how genuinely kind she is so that makes her even more beautiful.

I believe she looked prettier in motion but carried herself in a funny way. She didn’t have a good walk.

She seemed like a sweet soul though, which Margot portrayed very successfully.

I thought Sharon Tate was very beautiful with red hair in “The Fearless Vampire Killers”. I remember watching this film with my parents at the drive in theater, and my mother making the comment, “isn’t she the actress that was killed?” Naturally, I was shocked to learn about this when I was a kid.

That's just not great photography, R113

There's no doubt she was exquisite looking.

I loved the movie and I thought all three leads were fantastic, but I will never understand the Sharon Tate Was An Exquisite Beauty trolls. She was a pretty blonde who died tragically, period.

She was an AVERAGE blonde that died tragically.

I thought Margot Robbie was terrific in this — she really created a character out of body language and a very few lines. But all the photos of Sharon had more eye makeup, and this was a more natural look. Sharon probably didn't gob on the eyeshadow and lashes for daytime wear but a little bit on Margot would have emphasized the resemblance.

That said — never a big Brad Pitt fan, but damned if he isn't a character actor in a very handsome man's body. He walks away with this picture and makes it look effortless.

Question: When "Steve McQueen" is talking to the girl at the Playboy Mansion, is it supposed to be Joey Heatherton? Because the actress nailed Joey's voice.

R121 I thought it was her or Shirley Jones lol.

Brad Pitt steals the picture. He’s phenomenal.

Margot was LOVELY.

R121, I thought it was Connie Stevens.

R120 There was nothing average about her. In my opinion, the most beautiful star in Hollywood and her personality amplified that. The people here calling her averagely pretty must be blind. "Averagely pretty " is basically an instagram yoga ho, not someone who was jaw droppingly beautiful.

She’s not jaw droppingly beautiful though

Instagram yoga ho is a pretty good description of Sharon Tate though.

R125 Yes she was. No actress even comes close.

R127 no. She wasn’t. At all.

There were women far more beautiful than her.

i COMPLETELY DISAGREE. She didnt even look the part. In close ups of her face she was unattractive. Sharon Tate was one of the most beautiful women in the world at the time. Robbie was also too heavy and her legs were fat. SHe was not even close to looking like sharon tate. I could get past that if her acting made up for it but it didnt. She got the sweetness of sharon right but she really overplayed the hippie aspect and she gave sharon a frivolous spin/ appearance which was not sharon at all.

Terrible casting, terrible acting job. The movie however was absolutely excellent and Pitt and Leonardo were magnificent. It was a tightly shot movie and very very intense and a great movie. I especially was happy to see the happy ending for sharon tate and Tarantino really did a number on the manson killers reducing them to hippy losers, especially I like the making fun of Charles tex watson s name tex.......................Terantino took the evil out of the killers and showed them for what they were, dumber than average loser hippies.

^ If I didn't already know which delusional nutjob thinks Sharon Tate was a great beauty, I would swear her corpse fucking nutjob sister Debra was posting here. Sharon Tate was forgettable in every way but one.

Margot Robbie is memorable, always.

To be fair Robbie has been a movie star since Wolf of Wall Street.

That put her on the map and made her a household name.

R128, Alright, then name them.

These are 2 interesting podcast about Tate - the first covers her beginnings, and relationship with Jay Sebring. The second goes into her marriage with Roman Polanski.

An interesting thing the host mentions is, [italic]"Sharon felt a connection to the character of Jennifer. She knew what it was like to be wanted only for the way she looked, to be made to feel like her only asset was her physical perfection, and that aside from that she had nothing to offer. She also knew what it felt like to be taken advantage of because she was beautiful, to be made to feel like she was at once something more and less than human, and to be made to feel guilty about it ... But by the time she shot 'Valley of the Dolls', Sharon's beauty was failing her, in that it hadn't helped her to get to that next level as an actress, and it also hadn't helped her to maintain the undivided attention of the man she loved. Like her character Jennifer North, the thing that made Sharon special wasn't able to make her happy."[/italic]

It's rather shocking to most of us that you can be one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood (a town awash in good looks), but even that doesn't assure you good roles, OR a devoted husband. Frankly, it's depressing as all hell.

Anyway, these are from a 12 part series covering the Manson Murders.

R130, You are such a troll. Are you a crazy Manson Family fanatic who is angry at Sharon Tate for putting your heroes in prison or something? Or are you the Annie Wilkes to Margot Robbie's Paul Sheldon and you hold a grudge against Sharon because a random stranger on the Internet said Margot isn't pretty enough to play her once? Your irrational hatred for a B-list actress who has been dead for 50 years is creepy to say the least.

Sharon's insane sister - the talentless, starfucker, Manson family stalker and Polanski blackmailer Debra Tate, loved Margot Robbie as Sharon! Though Tarantino didn't take her "suggestions" he did consult her crazy ass.

R133 very interesting post

I didn't realize that was Costa Ronin from The Americans, as Voytek Frykowski! Too bad he didn't have much to do.

R133 I thought she was quite touching in VOTD. She seemed to really relate to the character.

The movie was brilliant. I fell in love with Brad Pitt in this movie. Margot definitely captured Sharon Tate. The Tate troll is bizarre.

Sharon was a cut-rate version of Cybill Shephard. Her career would have been short, even if she lived.

I think she would’ve done soaps and guest star on episodic television.

I loved they name checked Bob Conrad and his tight blue pants.

She saw herself as a light comedic actress , a Carole Lombard type. With her stunning beauty and charismatic presence I think she could have done very well in light hearted screwball comedies. I think she had something special, even if she wasn't a technically great actress. I would rather watch her than cold fish grace Kelly.

You need rest R144.

R144, please gurl.

[quote]r144 She saw herself as a light comedic actress , a Carole Lombard type.

I was not aware the dear thing was mentally retarded, alongside her other problems.

Sharon was naturally stunning, but some of the styling she tried in the 60s didn't look great. Her makeup and eyebrows were sometimes unflattering and her hair became damaged from the chemicals used to dye it and style it. Even her mother Doris admitted that Sharon was her most beautiful when she was a teenager prior to Hollywood and that people would stop in the street to stare at her.

A question for the sharon tate is stunning troll:

DL fave Patty Duke adored Sharon. Said she was one of those that was so comfortable with her beauty that she made everyone else comfortable too.

P.S. Do we really want to have to deal with the daughter of godawful Andie Mcdowall now? Like our fear of Rumer Willis wasn't enough. I so do not want to discuss later "The Films of Margaret Qualley".

Sharon Tate was not stunning.

Different strokes for different folks. The fact that nobody has had anything bad to say about her, as well as her outer beauty makes her extremely beautiful to me.

BTW - this is a different person.

We have ALL acknowledged she was very sweet and gentle.

That doesn’t change that she wasnt “strikingly beautiful” like some want to claim. She was pretty but nothing special.

R154, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," as they say. Maybe to you she was nothing special but to many others she was. Really, what difference does it make to you whether others think she is beautiful or not? You seem hellbent on erasing her legacy like you have some sort of personal vendetta against her.

Her legacy was being murdered. That’s it.

And I have no issue with it. My issue is people trashing Robbie and making her seem ugly and fat.

R156 It’s too bad you couldn’t make your point without being disturbing and nasty.

r152 Popular consensus disagrees with you but keep telling yourself that, ugly.

R156, Look at it this way: Sharon was beautiful, talented, and a good person. That is why Margot Robbie was chosen to play her over any other actress.

That popular consensus ALWAYS put blond white women on a pedestal. People are just over the bullshit. She was a very very attractive woman, but some of you are acting like she was Helen of Troy (another WW put on a pedestal). No one is calling her ugly, but we just don't see the goddess that some of you remember.

R160 Nobody is saying she was a goddess. She was a beautiful woman who by all accounts was a genuinely sweet, grounded, good person who didn’t take herself too seriously. No need to completely trash her. She doesn’t deserve that

r160 Sharon was naturally brunette with brown eyes and people considered her gorgeous her whole life, so you are wrong.

I don't know about this movie. Right after watching it, I didn't like it. But after a day, my feelings have changed. I don't know if it was because I really liked it or if I'm relieved it wasn't what I thought it was going to be or if I just like that Tarantino had a twist ending to this that's never been done before

I think I really just liked the ending. I didn't care for Leo. I usually don't like Brad, but I thought he was great. And Margo didn't have that big of a role. Sharon DID, but Margo didn't

R110 Jamie has a more beautiful and refined looking face. Margot head is huge, she has a man jaw, an exaggerated and creepy smile. There is nothing remarkable about her, no elegance, no style, no vulnerability.

Creepy looking face.

Never been done before? Inglorious Bastards ended with our hero’s killing Hitler, Goebels, and the entire Nazi high command. I’ll have to check, but I don’t think that’s how the war actually ended.

R166, I don't remember the end to that movie. That's how impressed I was with it. After all the gratuitous violence, I forgot how it ended

Anyone in LA, see it at Quentin's theater The New Beverly if you can. Lots of cool stuff and it's cheap.

R168 That sounds very cool. I wish i were near LA right now.

I’m shocked Lena isn’t making comments claiming she fears she’s the next Sharon Tate and will be butchered to get some attention

R170 I think she sort of learned her lesson after the incident where she joked about wanting to dress up as Karla Homolka's dead sister for Halloween and was slammed for it.

Nah, did she really R171? Lens Dunham is bold. Tammy Homolka is hard to recognize. Just a skinny trashy teen with a chemical burn mark on her face that the police missed. Oh, those regurgitators.

R115 Yes I agree

R109 Well said. She had a beautiful appearance and personality.

Yes, Margot Robbie beautifully portrayed the average pretty looks and ethereal sweetness of Sharon Tate. It's a really good movie. I didn't have much interest in the Manson murders or Sharon whatshername, but this Tarantino movie is great. Brad Pitt is the heart and King of it and don't crap on DiCaprio. He's always up for adventure and he delivers. There is a wonderful ending. It works. But this film is NOT about SHARON fucking TATE.

Well, of course not. He Man Tarantino isn't interested in her take on anything. Her value to him is as a fantasy figure blonde.

What was her take on being pregnant, bored & dumb, or murdered - while her husband was off screwing other women supposed to be R176? Tarantino did Sharon Tate's memory a great service by not giving her much to say. It was intentional. She wasn't a profound or insightful woman. When the only praise mourners have for her is "she was a sweet girl" - 50 years later - Tarantino was smart to present the "mood" of Sharon Tate. He certainly researched the reality. Her POV was not needed. Because she is famous only for the way she died. And that is handled gracefully. Robbie establishes that Sharon was sweet and pretty. And she imbues her with much more, even without many lines. Because Robbie is a fine actress. The film is not about Sharon Tate. But Margot Robbie becomes even more of a MOVIE STAR. OP is quite right about that.

Margot Robbie is a fine actress. It's just too bad an Academy Award nominee such as herself has to waste her time playing such a paper thin, virtually undeveloped character.

She certainly deserves better.

There were dark rumors that Roman and Sharon liked to pick-up young hippy-types and bring them back home for sex. I found it interesting that in one scene QT has Sharon give a young hitchhiker a ride somewhere.

Also, there's a flashback where it appears Brad's character kills his bitching harpy of a wife on a boat. A dig at Angelina?

[quote]r179 There were dark rumors that Roman and Sharon liked to pick-up young hippy-types and bring them back home for sex.

I don't think Tate was that much of a sexual swinger - though she liked the occassional LSD trip.

R179 I would take that with a huge grain of salt. There have been a lot of lies told about her over the years.

[quote]There were dark rumors that Roman and Sharon liked to pick-up young hippy-types and bring them back home for sex.

It was "hippie," not "hippy." Hippy means "fat-assed."

Great film and great thread....

I would be shocked if Margo Robbie doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for playing Sharon Tate. No, she doesn’t look like Sharon, but gives the essence of her.

Actors cast as other real people almost never look like them.

Margot was Sharon enough. I wish they'd found a part for her brother to play.

She's ok. I won't see another Tarantino movie again. He's trash.

[quote]I won't see another Tarantino movie again.

That's what I said. But "Hollywood" was good.

I don't care if it's the greatest film ever filmed. He's trash and I don't use my money to support trash.

Your loss, Stickupyass.

So true, R188. It is unlike any of his other films for me in that regard; it’s quite good. (And I am not a huge fan of his films in general...)

Your corruption, stank puss R190.

Oh, go drink your Mommy Juice, cuntescence.

Sure, R193, you buying?

A few years ago, there were plans made to make a film called Beautiful People. It would be a biopic about Jay Sebring and follow Sebring ,Tate , and their general social circle during the late 1960s. James Franco was announced to play Sebring and to direct. I thought the idea sounded fantastic but it appears the movie was dropped. I really think the idea was intriguing, how disappointing that there was no follow through .

You all cry about Sharon not looking like Tate but are ok with Franco playing Sebring?

R196 I actually see a bit of a resemblance between Sebring and Franco, particularly in the smile and bone structure. I think Franco would have done a fantastic job. I know he gets a bit of hate but I enjoy his work. My point Is that Jay was a fascinating person as well and it would have been a great concept

[quote] You all cry about Sharon not looking like Tate but are ok with Franco playing Sebring?

You All? Don't be stupid. One person felt that way

Most filmgoers are not 75 years old. We don't know how any of these people looked in their long ago lives, except for Manson. What's a Sebring? Why would people remember the work of Sharon Tate? I've only ever heard her mentioned on Datalounge. Most people could not pick her out of a lineup. So Tarantino and Robbie have been kind to her. She was sweet and pretty. But not talented or beautiful.

R199 She absolutely was incredibly and strikingly beautiful, and no amount of pretending otherwise will make this untrue. And she was a very charming and vulnerable actress who drew people's eyes to her onscreen.

All I've ever seen her in was VOTD. She looked like dozens of other pretty, barely talented actresses.

What film did she light up the screen in?

R201 She did very well in Fearless Vampire Killers, VOTD, 12 plus 1 ,and the Wrecking crew. A lovely, charming presence.

Margot has made excellent choices in terms of roles. Either she has a good sense for what will be successful or her agent does. She's beautiful and talented but her only possible downfall is overexposure. Americans can get very nasty if they see too much of someone. She should avoid doing too many interviews and keep a little mystique.

Margot has made excellent choices in terms of roles. Either she has a good sense for what will be successful or her agent does. She's beautiful and talented but her only possible downfall is overexposure. Americans can get very nasty if they see too much of someone. She should avoid doing too many interviews and keep a little mystique.

Sharon looked better with a more natural look: The exaggerated 60s eye makeup on her already huge eyes made her look like an alien.

R205 even there she doesn’t look like the bombshell you all wanna sell. She was average.

Robbie is much prettier.

I'm not selling anything, R206. There's more than one person commenting on these threads, you know.

[quote]I'm not selling anything, [R206]. There's more than one person commenting on these threads, you know.

Technically yes. And most posters don't see Sharon Tate as a "stunning" beauty. One poster does continue to post from several devices, agreeing with himself. As he did on the Smollett threads and Supermodel threads and trying to sell Liv Tyler as a great beauty too. He's an older man who tries to sound young. His style is recognizable, and relentless. Sharon Tate was pretty, not beautiful.

Tate was pretty in a blonde young woman of that era kind of way. Thousands of her type. But her long nose and witches chin and too large eyes preclude her from being considered a great beauty. By all reports she had a lovely personality. She might have worked at the Dairy Queen.

Sharon looked as good as she would ever look in Valley of the Dolls.

Sharon wouldn't have been a major star. She'd have divorced Polanski for desertion and infidelity and married her former flame Jay Sebring, had more kids, and retired from acting to become a Real Housewife. Sebring would have built a big business around his designer hair products. Remember those Annie Lebovitz black and white pictures of Paul Mitchell, his trophy wife, and their blond kids? That would have been Jay and Sharon.

Interestingly, Roman might not have ended up fleeing the country over the statutory rape charge: His interest in very young girls reportedly began when he was bumming around Europe after Sharon's death. Apparently he liked the fact that teenagers didn't know him or his history (though I'm sure more base motives also played into his attraction).

r206 I mean, I don't think dozens of people comment on how beautiful you are and stop in the street and stare at you if you are average looking, but keep believing your delusions.

Her best look.

Look, different strokes for different folks. I personally think Sharon Tate is beautiful and it’s okay if people don’t. I don’t get arguing over this when people’s opinions aren’t going to change.

I think she was beautiful but the poster obsessed with her keeps on claiming Robbie is hideous. She isn’t.

Margot Robbie doesn't really look like Sharon Tate, but she's a strikingly beautiful blonde like Tate, so her casting worked just fine. The part was more symbol than character--any beautiful blond actress could have done it. Given how high-profile Robbie is right now, I'm surprised she wanted the part.

Robbie wanted the part because it was QT. Who wouldn't?

He'll get Brad an Oscar- just wait and see.

I agree that Brad will be a favorite for an Oscar next year. He was great in the part, and he's due.

I can see Robbie taking this rather nothing role as an investment in future possible parts with Tarantino, though if he's only making another couple of movies, she'll have to cash in that good will quickly.

Stunning.

The role wasn’t nothing, and not just anyone could pull it off the way she did.

I’m tired of the “any blonde could have done this” because not “any blonde” looks striking like Margot did in this movie, or has a natural glow to them and strong screen presence, and not any blonde could capture Sharons gentleness, femininity, grace and sweetness and come off 100% sincere. It’s easy to come off phony in those moments and she always came off genuine and sincere and authentic.

Not just “any blonde” can do that.

Margot can sit silent and you’re still drawn to her. Shes one of the films biggest talking points with viewers and she hardly had lines and almost all of it is positive. She looked stunning in the scene she’s driving her car and picks up the hitchhiker.

Also, this is now a QT film on her resume as well as MAJOR EXPOSURE for her. She’s all over the press junket all over the world.

I like people who's lives are spent sitting in front of a computer screen, declaring which people are "trash" using their strict standards of morality.

Fact is, people who actually live a life off the internet where they interact with actual humans sometimes make questionable choices, and are sometimes messy. Hopefully, they learn from it and move on. They just have to deal with the pinched face scolds on the internet calling them "trash."

R221 who are you speaking to?

Unbearable gay writer Rich Juzwiak reviews Robbie's performance in unbearable feminist website "Jezebel":

"The Tate that Robbie’s Tate watches on screen is the actual Tate in the actual 1968 film, which I suppose should be moving or meta or movingly meta but it mostly just reminds you of the great contrast at hand. Neither Robbie nor Tarantino have come close to nailing Tate—Robbie opts not for Tate’s affected serenity nor idiosyncratic speech pattern with notes of aristocracy. When she peeks out from behind the blankness at all, it’s via mild ’80s-sitcom-grade blonde ditziness. Robbie has as much in common with Tate as the mechanical shark in Jaws does with an actual great white. It’s just a rough outline. She’s given not much to work with and somehow does less with it."

That is actually a very well thought out and written article (above)

I suppose it's as good as a feminist critique can be. It's too bad it can just be shrugged off if you don't share its political assumptions. Tarantino doesn't, which I think is what he was hinting at in his response to the NYT interviewer.

Wait, I'm still the biggest female movie star of the 20th Century right? Why is this troll trying to scare me?

What's the dig at Julia Roberts about? She's great. And 51. Not likely bothered by Margot Robbie or anyone else. Jennifer Lawrence might be upset though...

Is the thread title saying Robbie wasn’t a star, before?

This is not a star making role. It’s actually a comedown for her.

Robbie was fantastic. Sick of feminists crying because she wasn’t the one with the most lines and wasn’t portrayed as some tough badass chick.

That’s not who she was and it was 1969.

Didn't her sister say Jennifer Lawrence wasn't pretty enough to play Sharon when she was rumored for this role?

She’s right.

J Law is the perfect example to use for those that say “any blonde could have done this role”. She would not have been able to pull off what Margot did.

Any beautiful blonde could have done the role, which was mostly about looking great, smiling, and dancing. Jennifer Lawrence is not beautiful--not even when you dip her head-first in Dior--and has a sour vibe that would have been all wrong.

No. Not any blonde could have done this role.

It’s the role that’s easiest to screw up if not smart in this movie.

I saw the movie Thursday night and I haven't stopped thinking about it.

Mild spoiler alert: I thought the ending was beautiful and sad, because that's the way I wish it had been in real life. I was dreading a massacre, but I enjoyed having the rug pulled out from under me.

And Margot was luminous in this; she was almost literally glowing in every scene, especially when she went to watch her self in "the wrecking crew." She really did look like a movie star playing a movie star.

R235 exactly. She was LOVELY. People want to discredit her when her performance is the easiest to fuck up.

Did anyone else tear up at the end when we see Rick walking through the gate to Sharons and we see all 4 slain people greet him?

What's kind of revolting is, what makes Tate's death any sadder than Abigail Folger's? Aside from the fact one was pregnant. (Still, we know THAT'S not what it's about.)

R436, yes, at first I was happy to see it, but as the (security?) camera held on the empty driveway, I did tear up a little, knowing the reality of what actually happpened...

[R236], yes, at first I was happy to see it, but as the (security?) camera held on the empty driveway, I did tear up a little, knowing the reality of what actually happpened..

I'm a guy, but I still feel strongly about women being represented equally in Hollywood. So I won't spend money on buddy movie crap like this that just throws women a line or two.

I might watch it if it's lying around a friend's house. Or I might not. But I won't feed those projects financially.

R240 STFU

It's not just of representation, it's an issue about equal pay. When you have a movie like this with almost all male characters, an almost all male crew and production team, who gets the millions?

Why would I want to keep women down?

F/F r242

r241 / r243 is extremely eloquent.

The ending is so bittersweet and haunting. They were all interesting people. I wonder if our culture would be different if it had never happened.

This thread has really attracted the Marys.

r235 Sharon Tate was not luminous, never glowed and most importantly, was NEVER a movie star!

Some in the younger generation are interested in vintage clothing and styles and have seen photos of Tate through instagram and Pinterest. She had an amazing fashion sense and looked beautiful in everything she wore. New York Times did an article about this a few years ago. I'll try to find it.

The ending is very poignant. You really WANT it to be what happened, while knowing full well what actually happened.

Margot has a new scary movie coming out ,it looks quite good. She's definitely having her moment.

Margot has a new scary movie coming out ,it looks quite good. She's definitely having her moment.

She was nominated for an Oscar. I don’t think an upcoming horror film compares to that as “having a moment.”

She’s already arrived.

I feel bad they made her audition nude for The Wolf Of Wall Street. That's so unacceptable nowadays

If you're talking about Ready or Not, R251, that's not Margot Robbie. It's her doppelganger Samara Weaving.

What were the movie trailers playing in the theater when Sharon goes to watch The Wrecking Crew?

"C.C and Company," starring Joe Nameth and Ann-Margret

All of the restaurants seen in the movie are particularly packed. I was a Musso's last night and it was a mob scene.

R254 whoops I feel stupid. I was absolutely sure in the trailer that it was Margot. The resemblance is quite uncanny though.

R254 whoops I feel stupid. I was absolutely sure in the trailer that it was Margot. The resemblance is quite uncanny though.

You shouldn't feel stupid, R254! She's practically Margot's twin.

Add in Jaime Pressley, too. I swear they grow them in a lab along with all the actors name Chris.

You know, I started out liking Ms. Robie. Accepting this lackluster acting role has dimmed her somewhat in my eyes, however.

She can do better.

They are all pretty, like head cheerleader mean girl pretty.

[quote]Didn't her sister say Jennifer Lawrence wasn't pretty enough to play Sharon when she was rumored for this role?

Yeah, the sister said that. But, Jennifer Lawrence wasn't being considered to play Sharon. She met with QT for another role and somehow Debra Tate thought it was for Sharon part and went on a pointless media tirade.

Deb wasn't happy about Hilary Duff playing Sharon in that Haunting of Sharon Tate movie either. Kate Bosworth is playing Sharon in an upcoming movie called Tate and Deb is fine with it.

Debra Tate is a lunatic. She was 15 when Sharon Tate was butchered and she's been dining out on her ever since.

R261 When Margot was on that short lived ABC show Pan-Am, a friend stopped by one night when I watching it. He thought it was Jamie Pressley.

Glad it's a hit.

Per Deadline: Hollywood is still very much a ‘must see’ movie, and Friday night’s 8pm 70MM showtime at the Hollywood Arclight’s Cinerama Dome was nearly sold out, earning a huge shout from attendees when the iconic theater popped on screen and applause at the end.

Grosses stand at $78.8 in its first ten days

r267 Sharon Tate's power!

Margot is much more beautiful than Jamie

Love to see gorgeous women on the screen. Men too of course. I'd see any film with Leonardo DiCaprio.

DiCaprio was gorgeous for about a minute in the 90s. Brad Pitt, OTOH, has been fuckable for decades.

Leo isn’t gorgeous. Hasn’t been hot since the 90s.

I find Leo even hotter now.

Robbie was "ok" in the role, but nothing to rave about. She was simply portraying a nice, plain-vanilla, cookie-cutter, beautiful girl - nothing Oscar-worthy in that. They could have cast a blonde 'sweetheart' like Blake Lively in the role (who is sweet and dim / ditzy by nature) - and she would have created the exact same "mood".

In fact, I think some of Robbie's smiles felt a bit forced, her sweetness felt a bit 'faux' and put on. Unlike our resident Tate super-fan, I don't think Tate was the 'the most beautiful thing eva'. But in her candid photos (i.e. not screen roles, but personal life photos) she did have a very gentle, [italic]delicate[/italic] demeanor. This is why she was such a perfect victim and why her murder was so shocking - because (on top of being pregnant) she also looked like [italic]such[/italic] a delicate thing.

Whereas Robbie is anything but 'delicate' - she's a healthy, robust, Australian bombshell. Looking at Robbie, you can imagine her running a marathon or swimming across the La Manche. Robbie looked like a healthy Playboy model, not like a delicate wifey (Tate).

And this matters - because, looking at Robbie, you can imagine a robust, strong-looking bombshell like her putting up a decent fight if she were attacked by a group of lunatics. But Tate looked like she could be overpowered by a nun.

And I agree with R100 - had Rose Byrne been younger, she would have been perfect to play Tate. Tate wasn't a natural blonde, she was a brunette. But it's not even the looks - it's the aura of (effortless, non-contrived) gentleness, a bit of a Beta personality. Robbie is a very bubbly, strong, alpha-type female, a casual surfer - that's why she was believable as the combative, swearing Harding and as the pugnacious, swearing bombshell in Wolf of Wall Street. But she just doesn't exude effortless delicateness. She even walks in the film with a confident spring to her step, like a surfer bombshell.

If Olivia Palermo had been an actress, she would have better encapsulated Tate's type of female - a wistful, more delicate type.

[quote] I agree that Brad will be a favorite for an Oscar next year. He was great in the part, and he's due.

[quote] Brad Pitt gives one of the best of his career ... I feel he always leave parts of himself in the role but here it worked, especially after all he’s been through with Angelina. He’s overall quiet and had this aggressiveness and manliness to him thats hot here, but he’s cool and fun and a good friend.

[quote] Brad Pitt steals the picture. He’s phenomenal.

Oh please. What exactly did Pitt do that was so ‘phenomenal’? He pretty much played [italic]himself[/italic] - confident, laid-back, masculine, smiled a lot, vacant stare. He barely reflected on anything or anyone. When confronted with a narrative challenge - his character either smirked, laughed things off or beat other characters up. He never looked scared or psychologically complex about anything. He did only what his basic character required (a “cool dude" Mary Sue trope, who manages to win at everything and beat up everyone who challenges him).

Did Pitt push his artistic boundaries in this film? No. Did he reveal a new thespian side to himself that we haven’t seen before? No. He just played himself - an aging, handsome “cool dude” who is emotionally laid back about everything and wins at everything without any problem.

[quote] Brad Pitt stole the film. He was brilliant.

[quote] Pitt just lived in his character, taking things as they come, not very reflective. He walks into situations that are frightening, potentially deadly, and really doesn't break a sweat. Bone deep confidence that he can handle things. He seems to just go with things, but really he is in command because he is prepared and able to do what it takes. Really, nerdy goofball Tarantino's fantasy of what a real cool guy is like.

Exactly, Pitt “stole” the film because his character was supposed to. Tate was a bare vignette. DiCaprio was written as a comedic, but slightly off-putting fat mess. Whereas Pitt played the “Superman” character that every spotty, nerdy teenage gamer (Tarantino secretly) wants to be: Beat up an eyerollingly ‘annoying’ Bruce Lee? Check. Beat up annoying hippies? Check. Possibly harpooned his super-annoying cunt of a wife (who, ya know, 'deserved it', lol)? Check. Protected the virtue of an under-age girl and rejected her blowjob offer, like a true gentleman? Check. Made sure his old octogenarian friend was ok? Check. Basically saved everyone in the film? Check. Survived a knife wound and simply laughed it off, like a ‘cool guy’? Check.

Tarantino very simplistically & intentionally designed this film in a way that you’d have no choice but to root for Pitt. He was “a good, loyal friend, a gentleman, a martial arts prodigy, a super-chill, cool dude, a down-to-earth modern Cowboy who's not driven by money, fame or ego like almost everyone else in Hollywood” - basically everything one wants to be. Total wish-fulfillment. His character barely had any bad traits and held all the aces in the narrative - all the ‘cool dude’ scenes.

It was a [italic]one-note[/italic] performance of a very simple Mary Sue superhero character. Pitt barely had to do anything challenging in this film - he just walked and drove around like he’s the best chill guy in LA, with balls of steel and the best fighting skills in town.

What you say may be true, R276, but Oscars are not about the depth of the performance but about marketing, popularity, and zeitgeist. Taking that into account, Pitt is a shoo-in for the award.

Also R276 you could see that ending coming a mile away with Pitt as the hero saving Sharon Tate & co.

When does this come out on DVD? I wanna buy this one.

I saw it three times in the movies, the first time alone and then twice more with different friends

I really liked it. But I agree Brad Pitt stole the show.

Brad Pitt was the best, but I loved how Margot was used.

It's a very good performance, but she won't get the Oscar for it. She wasn't given enough lines, and feminists were bothered by the lovingly fetishistic close-ups of her dirty feet.

Yes, We mustn't bother the feminist Academy-member voting block

Fuck the feminists

Man. I loved this movie. I loved the way Tarantino used her. I know many hated how “underused” she was, but I liked that she wasn’t overexposed in the film. It added a bit of mystery to her and joy when she did pop up.

Robbie was given a nothing role in this. I’ve seen her a few times now and both of her Oscar nominated roles and I find her competent. She is beautiful. Maybe she will do a great part some day.

Excuse me?