Too proud.

The slow-motion flashbacks to the bombing itself (we never learn anything about who planned the attack or why) are more quiet than extremely loud, but they come incredibly close to tastelessly evoking the ashen horror of 9/11.

If a studio is going to sink millions in bringing a property to the big screen, they want a star or bankable lead, not some unknown.

The trailer doesn’t accurately describe what the movie is about. I saw the movie, and I stand by what I said initially. The editing for the trailer is crap. Trailers are elevator pitches to audiences, a marketing tactic to get butts in theatres, and this one sucks. Is it a film about a cowboy actor has-been and his…

I think it’s also pretty insulting to Robbie. It implies the only way you can “act” is if you have dialogue. I think it’s a testament to her talent that I thought she conveyed as much about her character and told her story as well as Pitt and DiCaprio with a fraction of the dialogue.

Creative fiction shouldn’t feel like it can’t utilize serious events to make a point. It would be one thing if QT made Inglorious Basterds or Django to celebrate bigotry. But he didn’t. In fact, those are straight-up empowerment movies. And you could get yourself twisted up about whether a white Christian man is…

I saw the movie and it is good. Quite good. Apart from the gross foot stuff (FUCKING SPARE ME, SPARE ME!) the three problematic things with the movie are (1) Hiring batterer Emile Hirsch at all, he savagely beat a woman and has been rewarded for it since, (2) the Cliff wife murder...it’s not just played off, it is…

Basically Rich is demanding Tarantino make a completely different film than the one he made. He also criticizes it for not being like his previous films but then just a moment later says his earlier films suck too.

Tarantino’s crime: not doing the Manson Family fan-service movie Rich wanted to see. Rich is tearing off Tarantino’s wig in the bathroom.

What’s wrong with liking movies more than people? I think nearly every good author in history probably liked books more than people. Painters too. Movies may feel like a shallower art form, especially Tarantino movies, but I’m glad he’s still doing his stupid stylized entertaining thing instead of “growing up” and…

Tate is positioned to be the stand in for the innocence of the era and how it was lost, in contrast to the grubbier main characters. She’s meant to be in the background.

QT actually writes female characters well. I understand objecting to his off screen actions, but to call his on screen work misogynistic is simply untrue.

You thank a person for watching a movie so you don’t have to, but have a pre-existing problem with the man and his movies, so why would you watch in the first place?

No, she’s wrong. The white guy who’s lecturing us about how women should be written and treated in movies is right.

Hollywood is shitty toward women. This movie is about Hollywood. Is it really a talking point that Pitt’s character killed his wife and got away with it? Isn’t that a nod to Natalie Wood? Are all main movie characters supposed to be a good shining example of how we all should be?

This over-the-top pearl clutching that seems to follow after every new movie these days is cringe worthy, not to mention exhausting. You guys should lay off watching movies for a while and make take up on knitting or something. 

Oh good, another think piece by a man telling women that they should be outraged at something instead of listening to the women involved and hearing what they think about it. Great!

Weird, I just read where Debra Tate said that Margot Robbie does a wonderful job portraying her sister and had nothing but praise for the film. I am seeing it tonight so I will judge for myself!

You definitely can’t say that the murder of his wife led Polanksi to rape a child.

I guess that explains how dragons breathe fire. They’re just the most luxurious model of Vogner that Strickland sells. Take that, Thatherton!