Once Upon a Time in Hollywood opened as the best Tarantino film he's made at 40M. Lion King took in another $75M. Everybody is satisfied with that.

Funny that the Lion King will earn big bucks, yet every review I read says exactly the same thing. It is the same story as in the animated version, the voice work is no better, and the impressive visuals don't actually add to the charm of the original. Some times things can be left alone despite advanced technology.

Dumbo was a good example of something that didn't need to be remade. I think Cats will be a good example of something that looks fine as a stage play, but just stupid as a movie.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Saw Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

As an overall idea fused with some really great scenes (including a great ending) I loved it.

As a 2hr and 41 minute film with many empty and dialogue free scenes I felt like it kept having to wake me up when it got to the good parts.

It's as if Tarantino forgot why people liked his movies in the first place.

Hey! You stole my review or we are psychic!

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood opened as the best Tarantino film he's made at 40M. Lion King took in another $75M. Everybody is satisfied with that.

The Tarantino faithful will generally hit much of the first weekend. Really going to be interested to see what kind of legs Hollywood is going to have. I didn't find this one anywhere near as interesting as Django or Inglorious Bastards.

quote:

Originally posted by barobehere:

Hey! You stole my review or we are psychic!

Haha great minds! Actually I do need watch it again. I had no idea or even a guess as to where the film was going in the first place. I loved the ending so much I do feel I at least owe it that. Doubt I will pay to see it again but I will see it again.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I had no idea or even a guess as to where the film was going in the first place. I loved the ending so much I do feel I at least owe it that. Doubt I will pay to see it again but I will see it again.

As an aside, and not trying to get into spoilers, I thought Tarantino was allowed to have it both ways and he shouldn't have been. He made a totally fictional film with fictional characters, that intersected with real people and events of the time. Now this is common in all movies, but not to the extent that it changes verifiable, well known events. This is getting hype from true events, but then saying we don't need facts and can make up our own history.

Why didn't Tarantino just do the same movie and keep all places and all names fictional? Because it gets more attention to say Hollywood 1969, Tate and Manson, that's why. He thinks he is too smart by half.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

As an aside, and not trying to get into spoilers, I thought Tarantino was allowed to have it both ways and he shouldn't have been. He made a totally fictional film with fictional characters, that intersected with real people and events of the time. Now this is common in all movies, but not to the extent that it changes verifiable, well known events. This is getting hype from true events, but then saying we don't need facts and can make up our own history.

Why didn't Tarantino just do the same movie and keep all places and all names fictional? Because it gets more attention to say Hollywood 1969, Tate and Manson, that's why. He thinks he is too smart by half.

If it was anyone BUT Tarantino I would agree with you. This is a time period he is infatuated with, possibly to a fault. I honestly believe he wanted to tell a "what if?" story.

I also think he wanted to put Sharon in a fuller context than our cultural mindset of just being the victim of the Manson family murders. Add all the creepy Polanski stuff and she just sort of got lost in history I don't think many of those quirky scenes really worked for me but I believe that is what he was trying to do.

It's a little sad, while I was watching the scene I nudged my son and said; "Someone from the Lee family is gonna put on a victim suit and make a statement"

His daughter was 4 when he died, she grew up in his legendary status pretty much like the rest of us.

I find it interesting that even in this article you get two versions of Bruce Lee.


https://www.thewrap.com/bruce-...Nxr_FYt4VrGId7fNMnLM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mykdude:
It's a little sad, while I was watching the scene I nudged my son and said; "Someone from the Lee family is gonna put on a victim suit and make a statement"/QUOTE]

Well its very easy to take shots at people who are dead. By law, you can't slander the dead because they are dead and can suffer no reputational harm. So you can say or write anything you want and the family can't sue. That's why all the trashy biographies come out after people pass away.

Tarantino could portray Bruce Lee anyway he wanted. I have no idea if he sort to be accurate in his portrayal or just used his name as someone the audience would recognize, much like he used Tate and Manson and others, while then saying its only a fable or as you said a "what if".

Here's what I don't like. How many younger generations, far removed from these 60's times and with no desire to actually look up history, are going to believe the "fable" is true down the road. The Tate house murders and the associated murders of a couple of more people were absolutely horrific and rocked the core of what had evolved into Hollywood society at the time. I don't know that Tarantino's love of that time is not misplaced, but I don't have a problem with him worshiping it, so much as I have a problem with him distorting it.

If he wanted to blend the real with the unreal he needed to at least stick to the basic facts. Or else quite dropping real names, that people might assume has some truth in it, and make your fictional movie into whatever you choose. Just my own pov of course.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:


Here's what I don't like. How many younger generations, far removed from these 60's times and with no desire to actually look up history, are going to believe the "fable" is true down the road. The Tate house murders and the associated murders of a couple of more people were absolutely horrific and rocked the core of what had evolved into Hollywood society at the time. I don't know that Tarantino's love of that time is not misplaced, but I don't have a problem with him worshiping it, so much as I have a problem with him distorting it.

I would find that view more disturbing if Tarantino had placed a label on his film stating something to the effect that this is based on true events. Many such films are almost as outlandish as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and people take it for history. Anyone taking this film that seriously is probably too far down the road of their demise as it is. I can't blame Tarantino for that.

Another way to look at this is the many people (including Shannon Lee) who grew up in the wake of the Legend that became Bruce Lee. He is so well loved that it is easy to forget that he was human. Most of us have forgotten that he was known to trash talk at times or that he was into the drug culture. He was so vain that he had his underarm sweat glands removed because it looked bad. Many think that surgery was the beginning of what killed him several months later.

The scene was not flattering to Lee but neither was it to Brad Pitt's character as it was a reflection on how he was banned from his job. Just a couple of humans having a bad day.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
The scene was not flattering to Lee but neither was it to Brad Pitt's character as it was a reflection on how he was banned from his job. Just a couple of humans having a bad day.

Yes, but it wasn't a real bad day, it was a scene in a script. And Brad Pitt was playing a character, non-human, while Bruce Lee was presented as Bruce Lee, human.

I mean Shannon Lee can complain all she wants and it won't get her anywhere because it's within license, but I don't blame her for thinking its an unnecessary cheap shot just to dreg up a recognizable name of the era.

Anyway this one may make it to awards season for something. Hollywood loves nothing better than movies about Hollywood and any excuse to bring back bell bottoms.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

Anyway this one may make it to awards season for something. Hollywood loves nothing better than movies about Hollywood and any excuse to bring back bell bottoms.

Hahahaha! Yeah, can't say I understand Hollywood and their awards season. For me I am not entirely sure how much I like this movie but I have to admit some fascination with the crossroads of perspective. I did like it better than the Hateful Eight...so it's got that going for it.

Some more interesting articles surrounding OUTinH.

First article over a week ago and the second from yesterday the 3rd.

Given how long the state of California kept Manson alive and enabled I would have thought this ship had sailed years ago.

Never underestimate the generated interest of a new generation i guess. Will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

https://www.tmz.com/2019/07/25...ventures-zak-bagans/


https://www.tmz.com/2019/08/03...-sharon-tate-murder/

From Wiki which I think puts another interesting twist in the Tarantino tale.

"The original house was designed by Robert Byrd in 1942 and completed in 1944 for French actress Michèle Morgan.[1] It was extremely similar, but not exactly identical, to the house which sat on its own plateau directly below 10050, 10048 Cielo Drive, which was often called the Twin House. They were originally built on land called[by whom?] The Bedrock Properties and were built at the same time."

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

Never underestimate the generated interest of a new generation i guess. Will be interesting to see how long it lasts.

Kind of sad, they're looking for ghosts. Really?

Regarding the house, there is quite a bit of evidence, although the testimony gets murky, that it was the house that was the actual target for some reason. It had recently changed hands from Doris Day's son Terry Melcher to renters Polanski and Tate. Melcher knew Manson from a proposed record deal, but always maintained that Manson knew he had moved and was not looking for him. There remains doubt however because the Manson Family members who committed the murders were just told to kill everyone at the address. So Tate and her friends may not have been personally targeted, but just in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

"Once Upon a Time..." is up to about 79 M domestically so far, making it the # 20 movie of the year in terms of U.S. box office gross.

Unless it makes at least 110 M, it won't be in the Top 15 of the year. Can it do it ?

quote:

Originally posted by Tommy C:

Unless it makes at least 110 M, it won't be in the Top 15 of the year. Can it do it ?

Yeah it will hit that without too much problem. Still will need a foreign box office to make back both production and advertising budget. Strange I have not seen any listed as of yet.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Yeah it will hit that without too much problem. Still will need a foreign box office to make back both production and advertising budget. Strange I have not seen any listed as of yet.

It only goes on general release here in the UK on 15th August so no figures available yet. Probably similar in other countries.

Say what you will but I wonder how many other parents will be taking their daughters to Dora The Explorer this weekend? I know I am.

quote:

Originally posted by barobehere:
Say what you will but I wonder how many other parents will be taking their daughters to Dora The Explorer this weekend? I know I am.

My Daughter is 27 so I have earned a Dora free weekend.

Reviews look strong, could be a sleeper hit. I think they are anticipating 3rd or 4th place for the weekend.

Yet another kids' movie for 2019 has disappointed, in terms of the box office.

ANGRY BIRDS MOVIE 2. Has made only about 20 M so far in the U.S. The first one made over 100 M domestically, back in 2016.

First of all, thanks for the link. Second, my stepdad was a big fan of Bruce Lee. He knew his story and his movies. He passed away two months ago but I know what he would say. There are two things about Lee that many today would not understand: his level of concentration and his speed. The author is correct. There was no Hollywood stuntman who could land a punch on Lee much less catch him and throw him into a car. My stepdad would advise anyone who doubts that to ask Kareem Abdul-Jabaar or Chuck Norris.

When the ads for the movie started running on TV, I wondered if it was some kind of "what if" story. I still want to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
It's a little sad, while I was watching the scene I nudged my son and said; "Someone from the Lee family is gonna put on a victim suit and make a statement"

His daughter was 4 when he died, she grew up in his legendary status pretty much like the rest of us.

I find it interesting that even in this article you get two versions of Bruce Lee.


https://www.thewrap.com/bruce-...Nxr_FYt4VrGId7fNMnLM