It's understood that Pitt's character is a military veteran with combat training and experience (likely USMC) so it's not inconceivable.
I believe that possession of a flamethrower was actually only a misdemeanor offense in California in 1969 (as it is now?!?!).
I think he could have easily done it. Back then lots of service guys knew basic ju-jujitsu. And Cliff’s backstory (you have to read into “war hero’ and Tarantino’s only little concoction about his history, is that Cliff is a former Green Beret how surely would have known advanced hand-to-hand.
Well, I didn't expect too much, and not very much I got. Not bad, but not really that good either. And I "got" all of the little "interesting" details. Seems like the director wanted us to know how cool he was/is, remembering those details. I grew up in that area and know all of those spots. So what? Doesn't make a movie, though. A terrific script could have helped a lot. It was entertaining to see, though. 5 or 6 out of 10. It is disheartening to hear people praising such a lackluster, mediocre film, with really nothing going for it but image/myth-making, cartoonish vapidity. Underwhelming somewhat. But, one thing the director has a knack for is making me laugh while horrible scenes of violence are happening on the screen. Strange. Is that surrealism, or??......whatever the word is...there were more than several chuckles from me during the movie along those lines. Just could have been so much better. But, really, I should just accept things for what they are, as opposed to what I want them to be. Something to work on for me. Why I expected more, I don't know. For some reason, I had assumed that the director had made way more than 9 movies.
Well, it's apparently on the "Top 10 Best of the Year" critics' lists for the National Board of Review, the American Film Institute, and Time magazine (among many others), got five Golden Globe nominations, and it's one of the rare non-sequel/non-remake/non-comic book films that made over $350 million dollars this year. It's gotten quite a bit of critical acclaim: List of accolades received by Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Wikipedia BTW, it took Tarantino about 10 years to write this script (on and off), and I think there's more in it than you think at first glance.
You mean actually cut into the feature? Tarantino is very fussy about stuff like that, and wants the theatrical version to stand alone. As an example: he has shown a longer version of Kill Bill 1 & 2 in theaters in LA -- the whole thing cut together with extra scenes -- but seems to be disinterested in releasing it on home video. He's an eccentric with very specific ideas on how his films are released to the public.
Bounty Law's first season premiered Sept 1958 and had a two season run with the last episode broadcast in late Spring 1960. Cliff Booth was Rick Dalton's stunt double but before that he was a Green Beret. Here is a pic of some special forces graduates from Fort Bragg in 1952, I think Cliff would have fit right in.
Well, fortunately for me, I use my own brain and mind to determine what is good and what is not good, rather than robotic syncophantic industry dribble. I'm not one to be led around by a chain, replicating the appropriate mind speak of Top 10 lists and what Time magazine wants me to believe. Silly, really, to judge an artform on how much $$ it has made. But millions of people/sheep do exactly that. In every art form. Books, music.And hey, that's ok, too. The movie is a nice little entertainment for its 3 hours or so of viewing. I chuckled and laughed in several moments. It was good to see the Manson freaks get massacred in the end. And the colors were nice. Still, nothing Great, or spellbinding or provocative or illuminating going on here. A little bit better than average Hollywood tripe, though. I also enjoyed the last scene, during the credits, for the cigarette commercial. Bresson, Casavettes, etc., it ain't, though. No matter how long it took to write. Happy New Year everyone.
Eh, there's always the chance that you're out of sync with what the public and critics like. That happens to me on occasion: there's stuff I dislike that wins awards and makes a lot of money, and there's stuff I love that nobody's ever heard of and makes no profit. Nobody's perfect. But at the same time, I don't make the proclamation that when I say a film is good, it IS a good film. It's just an opinion. But when a film has the weight of awards, great reviews, and huge money, it's harder to argue that it's a bad film. More likely, all you can say is, "I didn't like it" or "it didn't entertain me." It's not a question of good/bad.
Frankly I enjoyed the fact it wasn't driven by plot as much as character. Even so, it is shrewdly constructed. The alternative to history it presents at end is that much more poignant. Although even if Manson had been removed from the Laurel Canyon and Hollywood scene (lets say busted for some other infraction), I still think it would have collapsed. It isn't obvious but it is apprehendable that QT is showing the twilight of an era, even with the happy ending.
Yes, I think that makes sense. It's an episodic plot at best, just a few days in the life of two washed-up actors trying to stay alive, encountering some interesting people along the way, but even that is very entertaining.
Oh, I'm well aware of the fact that I am "out of sync" with the mass public. Star Wars 12 and Batman 19 and Rocky 23, etc. are pointless dribble, with millions of followers, so I'm definitely in the minority. Yes, pointless dribble is my opinion. Art is neither good nor bad, we can agree on that. $$ means crap.
My wife and I finally saw this movie over the Xmas break. My take? I felt the storyline, acting, and direction were downright great... right up until the cheesy, cartoonish, ridiculous, and sophmoric ending. Leading up until the end, I thought the pacing and the acting (especially Brad Pitt) was downright great. Tarantino had so much to work with -- the story of, and relationship between, Dalton and Booth was so interesting, but it fell to pieces.
Tarantino's last few pictures wound up like this: Kill Bill 1 $185.09M Kill Bill 2 $152.2M Hateful 8 $155.8M Pulp Fiction $213.9M Inglorius Basterds $321.5M One Upon a Time in Hollywood $372.4M Django Unchained $425.4M That means as of right now, Once Upon a Time is his second biggest hit film so far.
Django Unchained was always his biggest commercial success, the only one to go past $400 million dollars. Kill Bill 1 only cost $30 million, and Kill Bill 2 was also $30 million, so since they together cost $60M but made $337 million, I think that's a success by any definition. I think Hateful 8 was kind of a breakeven: cost $55M, made $155M. It made a little money, but was not nearly the big hit they were hoping for (critically or financially). At least it didn't bomb. BTW: one unprecedented thing about Once Upon a Time is that Quentin got paid $25M up front for the film (out of its $90 million budget), which included fees for producing, writing, and directing, and after a few years, Sony Pictures is giving him the entire copyright to the film so that he owns it 100%. It's extremely rare for this to ever happen in Hollywoo.
Its a damn entertaining film. One of my favorites from him personally. I loved Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. Don't matter to me what critics think.
That figured looked so low to me that I had to look it up, 750k more but I thought it was a massive hit while it was out. I liked it immediately, I couldn't wait to get the DVD. How the hell can you beat Samuel L Jackson and Boyd from Justified arguing North/South politics like we do today with red/blue states. "Aw you been reading them newspapers that they print up there in Washington Deee Ceeee"
I did not like Hateful 8 at all, because I felt it was just a filmed stage play. I saw nothing in the movie that really needed to be shot in 65mm film. I also feel like it was just a long shaggy dog story that could have been told in about an hour.
