Tarantino has a style of his own. Others have tried to emulate it over the years, but it's not the same. I've seen all his movies (personally my fav is reservoir dogs) and I love how he tells and ends his movies. This one was the first time where I was bewildered after the end of it. Don't get me wrong, the cinematography, the soundtrack and casting were first rate. The 1969 setting was flawless, right down to the very minor detail. The soundtrack was awesome, I could never fault Tarantino on this subject because I know it's a passion of his. DiCaprio was good as Rick Dalton but I doubt he had to extend his range much because he just channelled how he was before he won his academy award for The Reverant. Robbie was beautiful and free spirited as Sharon Tate but she was massively under used. Too be honest you probably wouldn't even know she was playing Tate until she went to the movie theatre and announced she was Sharon Tate and that she didn't want to pay 75c for a movie ticket. Pacino was good as Marvin Shwarz but let's be honest, he is just playing himself. My favourites were Pitt and Russell playing Cliff Booth and Randy/ Narrator respectively. Maybe because they bring more of a comedic approach to their characters, I'm not sure but they stand out more to me. The story seems more random then other Tarantino movies and the end doesn't really justify the means. I'm not asking for an explosive conclusion like Jdango Unchained but something that satisfies how the film has presented itself. And considering the backdrop and material, 1969, golden age of cinema about to close, the Manson family at their worst, Sharon Tates tragic death. It was pretty much wasted
