MovieChat Forums > George Clooney Discussion > George Clooney claps back at Quentin Tar...

George Clooney claps back at Quentin Tarantino for dragging his film career: 'F‑‑‑ off'


https://ew.com/george-clooney-slams-quentin-tarantino-for-dragging-his-film-career-8694603

reply

Once I saw the words "claps back", I knew a woman wrote the article.

reply

It's a dumb expression (and enough to put me off reading the article). Where do they dream up these things?

reply

Another one I hate is "shades". Example. "George Clooney shades Tarantino after his recent comments."

reply

Agreed!

reply

Ja Rule in 2003.

reply

He coined the term?

reply

I guess - “The term ultimately derives from a 2003 song by Ja Rule, appropriately titled “Clap Back.” The phrase is the meat of the hook (“Clap back, we gon' clap back”), which answers what Ja Rule and his crew will do to rappers who disrespect them.” (I read this somewhere. Just trying to answer the question.)

reply

Tarantino is right. Clooney is not box-office star. Not a real movies star like Pitt. Cruise.
He is media star. Hollywood press hypes him. Gives awards. But then no one cares to see Clooney in movies.

When you will look at his filmography you will see that his movies either flop. can't make it's budget or some artsy-fartsy low budget crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney_filmography

"Oceans" movies were ensemble . And Pitt was more of a main draw.

The Peacemaker (1997). Budget $50 millions. Domestic Box Office $41 millions
Out of Sight (1998). Budget $48 millions. Domestic Box Office $37 millions
Three Kings (1999). Budget $48 millions. Domestic Box Office $60 millions
The Perfect Storm (2000). Budget $120-140 millions. Domestic Box Office $182 millions
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000). Budget $26 millions. Domestic Box Office $45 millions

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002). Budget $26 millions. Domestic Box Office $16 millions
Solaris (2002). Budget $47 millions. Domestic Box Office $14 millions
Intolerable Cruelty (2003). Budget $60 millions. Domestic Box Office $35 millions

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005). Budget $7 millions. Domestic Box Office $31 millions
Syriana (2005). Budget $50 millions. Domestic Box Office $50 millions
The Good German (2006). Budget $32 millions. Domestic Box Office $1 million

Michael Clayton (2007). Budget $21 millions. Domestic Box Office $49 million
Leatherheads (2008). Budget $58 millions. Domestic Box Office $31 million
Burn After Reading (2008). Budget $37 millions. Domestic Box Office $60 million
The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009). Budget $24 millions. Domestic Box Office $32 millions
Up in the Air (2009). Budget $25 millions. Domestic Box Office $83 millions

The American (2010). Budget $20 millions. Domestic Box Office $35 millions
The Ides of March (2011). Budget $12 millions. Domestic Box Office $40 millions
The Descendants (2011). Budget $20 millions. Domestic Box Office $86 millions
Gravity (2013). Budget $80-130 millions. Domestic Box Office $274 millions

The Monuments Men (2014). Budget $70-91 millions. Domestic Box Office $78 millions
Tomorrowland (2015). Budget $180-190 millions. Domestic Box Office $93 millions
Hail, Caesar! (2016). Budget $22 millions. Domestic Box Office $30 millions
Money Monster (2016). Budget $27 millions. Domestic Box Office $41 millions

You could see that his films where he is main star can't even make 100 millions. Usually they have some 20-40 millions budget. And then barely make it back.

Oceans was a huge ensemble. Gravity made huge money but he was small supporting while Bullock was lead. I guess he can count Perfect Storm as success.

And Tarantino was right when he said “It’s been a long while since I think George Clooney has drawn anybody to an audience. When was the last time that he had a hit in this millennial?”

Apart from Gravity which wasn't his lead movie - not one of his movies where he was main draw - made 100 millions at the box-office.

His last Oceans movie was in 2007

reply

""Oceans" movies were ensemble . And Pitt was more of a main draw."

I came here to make this point about the few movies he was in that were hits or at least made a profit - they were ensemble casts, or he was paired with a legit movie star like Mark Wahlberg or Anna Kendrick (e.g. The Perfect Storm, Up in the Air, Three Kings)*. This goes for his whole career, not just since the turn of the millennium. So, I guess if you aren't a movie star, it pays if you are friends with some of them and can get them in your movies.

Mark Wahlberg ( a legit movie star) co-starred in "Perfect Storm."

* Could say he anchored "From Dusk til Dawn," and it did turn a profit, but it only grossed 60 mil and also starred Harvey Keitel and Juliet Lewis. Neither is a legit A-lister, but both were well-recognized actors at the time the movie was made.

reply

How about great movies.
Out of Sight
Syriana.
O Brother, Where Art Thou?

I really liked From Dusk Till Dawn. Clooney and Hayek were at their best. But Keitel, Lewis and Tarantino were great too.

reply

I liked O Brother and Dusk to Dawn as well, but we are discussing whether he is a movie **star**. That is different than being a good actor. None of the movies you listed even grossed 100 million. Now, guys like Brad Pitt, Leo DiCaprio, and Tom Cruise are legit movie stars. All three have anchored multiple mega-hits and have had long acting careers (my two criteria for "movie star" status.

One last comparison. Clint Eastwood starred in and directed "Unforgiven" and "Gran Torino." Clooney starred in and directed "Leatherheads."

reply

To the last point of yours - what were the movies Pitt, DiCaprio and Cruise directed? Actually, I don’t necessarily think Clooney is a good actor. I do think he belongs with these guys in the category of movie star, just as those you didn’t list - like Denzel (who is the best actor of all of these) and Keanu (who probably isn’t).

reply

I never described any of those three as being directors. They are three examples of movie stars.

The whole point of my post was pointing out why I don't think Clooney is a movie star, or even a good director.

I agree Denzel and Keanu are legit movie stars.

reply

Legit?

I would say the movie star is better at having personality and presence more than being a great actor. Like I said, Tom Cruise’s best role was Magnolia for acting. DiCaprio’s was What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Keanu’s is My Own Private Idaho, Pitt’s Kalifornia (he has others - but I thought he so good in this one), Clooney in O Brother. AND Denzel, how many can we say for acting - Flight, Training Day. Eastwood was Gran Torino.

reply

Letess, again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said a movie star had to be a great actor. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a great film (and theater) actor, but he was never a movie star.

reply

We are actually saying the same thing only you don’t think Clooney is a movie star and I think he is. In addition to being fairly good actors, a movie star has presence and likability, as well as being in really good movies - and that includes Clooney. And they have a great look which is a huge part of it not mentioned yet.

What I was trying to do in previous post regarding the acting - I was trying to show that the movie each star excelled in as far as acting is a little known movie most people haven’t seen and is not a blockbuster.

I don’t know what a legit movie star means? The legit part.

reply

We have slightly different definitions for "movie star." My definition excludes Clooney, while yours does not.

reply

I understand what you are saying. It’s valid. Who then are the movie stars. Other than the ones we mentioned previously.

Matt Damon? Charlize? Margot? Liam? Tom Hanks? Crowe. Just curious.

reply

Everyone on that list. Some iconic characters they played

Jason Bourne
Queen Ravenna
Barbie
Brian Mills
Forrest Gump
Maximus

List some actors you consider movie stars, but think I wouldn't

reply

It doesn’t matter. I knew it. It’s Politics. You don’t like his.

reply

Mark Wahlberg is a movie star?

reply

one of the biggest.

reply

I looked at his filmography. I guess I'm out of the loop. I hadn't even heard of most of those movies. "The Perfect Storm," yes.

reply

I guess you just don't watch many movies. Nothing wrong with that.

reply

I'm aware of the really big ones. I've never seen Titanic or Avatar, but I know they were monster hits. But no, I'm not down at the theater every Friday to see the latest. I'm the sort of person who can wait until it comes out on a streaming channel. They always do, eventually, if they're big enough. 🤷🏼‍♀️

reply

I loved Out of Sight and Syriana. O Brother, Where Art Thou? Fantastic.

These aren’t listed in your post.

reply

They are

reply

I see that now. This was a lot of work to compile. But it really doesn’t mean anything. Tom Cruise would be the major movie star (to you, due to the money raked in) because he makes movies that are part of a franchise, does these complicated and dangerous stunts, a majority of his movies are blockbusters, and he has a major say in how they are marketed. Still, his best movie performance is Magnolia. Brad is the “better” movie star because he’s made both. Denzel too. But you can’t take anything away from Clooney because he’s made really good movies. A lot of the best movies don’t make much money. What movies do you put in artsy fartsy category. Just curious.

reply

Tarantino is right. Clooney is not box-office star. Not a real movies star like Pitt. Cruise.
He is media star. Hollywood press hypes him. Gives awards. But then no one cares to see Clooney in movies.

When you will look at his filmography you will see that his movies either flop. can't make it's budget or some artsy-fartsy low budget crap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clooney_filmography

"Oceans" movies were ensemble . And Pitt was more of a main draw.

---

And likely Julia Roberts too -- though she and Clooney made "a great couple"(divorced at the beginning of the film, arguing throughout, together at the end), she was the bigger star of the two at the time, by far.

Matt Damon at the time of the first one was a star, too -- but rather struggling at the time. By the time Damon came back for Ocean's 12, he had made The Bourne Identity and was a BIG star(Clooney himself noted the change) ...so now Clooney was behind Pitt, Roberts, and Damon in star power and drawing ability. (As I recall his Ocean's character spent a lot of that second movie in a jail cell apart from the rest of the cast, fewer scenes, etc.)

---

George Clooney's "star but not a star" story is one of the more interesting ones in Hollywood history -- and both Tarantino and...the bombastic but star savvy Donald Trump have recently called him on it (Trump: "Movies have never really worked for him -- he should go back to TV.")

Actually , Trump's criticisms probably helped RAISE Clooney's stardom in 2024.

CONT

reply

Setting aside the Ocean's films, Gravity, The Perfect Storm(in which, Clooney said, the star was really "that big wave") and I'll add "The Descendants" and "Oh Brother Where Are Thou"...Clooney made a LOT of movies that people simply didn't go see:

The Peacemaker
The American
The Good German
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Leatherheads
The Men Who Stare at Goats
The Monuments Men(despite Matt Damon and Bill Murray being in it)
Tomorrowland
Hail Caesar
Money Monster(even with Julia Roberts in it, but by then her drawing power had faded, too.)

But there is interesting "pushback" on all this:

George Clooney is still very rich. He made LOTS of movies, and movie stars get paid more than most of us, even if they aren't being paid top movie star pay(one doubts that Clooney ever got a Cruise, Pitt, Leo or Denzel level paycheck.)

Clooney lived in a castle on Lake Como Italy for many years -- and in a rather narcissistic manner, used it as a location for Ocean's 12.

Clooney supposedly made something like $300 million off his tequila brand -- these investments make a lot of modern movie stars very rich aside from making movies -- BUT that $300 million is a suspect number.

Clooney will likely never go broke or leave the scene entirely. (Movie stars of the 40s, 50s and 60s OFTEN went broke, to TV series, to retire at the Motion Picture Retirement home, etc.) Movie star earnings are just too big now.

CONT



reply

All this said, Clooney's career did go wrong and frankly in this article(to promote the possible comeback movie "Wolfs" with Brad Pitt), Clooney not only tries to go on the offensive against Tarantino(the best defense is a good offense), he makes some rather transparent excuses about his kids near the end as to why he's been gone.

A recent GQ interview with Clooney and Pitt has this passage:

"Clooney admitted that he has worked more as a producer and director in recent years, but is looking to transition back into acting, as it is now easier to balance work and family...with films like Wolfs premiering in September, and an upcoming Noah Baumbach directed movie that he just finished filming, Clooney acknowledged the reason he has shifted back to acting. 'Its a year on the road to direct, and now the kids are of a certain age. We're not going to uproot our kinds out of school and run around,' he said...'Before that, they could just come with us and we would all go. But that's different now. So now I'm going to just probably focus on other things, like acting.'"

That's not what he said a few years ago after he'd had so many failures he HAD to quit. Back then he said he'd gotten old and it was time to retire (columnists noted that "old" stars like Denzel and Pacino and DeNiro -- even older --were going fine.)

As happens to some fading stars, Clooney started getting PULLED from projects as "the attached star." The Man From UNCLE was one. And he likely wasn't getting paid all that much to be in movies. That's another secret about them -- Jim Carrey had to start taking low pay, high backend deals to keep getting movies.

But something seems to have come along to SAVE Clooney: Streaming. Its rumored that Clooney and Pitt EACH will get $45 million -- from Apple -- to be in Wolfs(and produce it.) On the other hand "Wolfs" just had it theatrical run seriously curtalied so maybe -- Apple thinks Clooney(especially) and Pitt aren't quite draws right now(both Clooney and Pitt are getting some controversial press.)

Netflix and Apple seem to be paying REALLY huge payouts to movie stars of any name at all. Folks like Will Smith and Eddie Murphy and Julia Roberts and Jennifer Lawrence are "coming back with huge pay" just because the streaming folks want the clout. (Add in international billion dollar grosses, ANY actors who get in these films do well.)

A little more on Clooney:

I've seen most of his films and he clearly has a "movie star thing going" : very handsome, great deep voice. As he ages, he uses a beard for gravitas.

Why didn't he REALLY make it as a star?

CONT

reply

I think its because he's had trouble hiding his ego and his nastiness of personality. When a reporter asked him if he thought he was the new Cary Grant (there is a resemblance)...he said "Yeah, but Cary Grant's dead." Right. When Burt Reynolds was asked if HE was the new Cary Grant, he said "That's very flattering, but no one other than Cary Grant can be Cary Grant."

I recall Clooney speaking of some political foe and saying in an interview that the guy "can lick my ass." I don't recall Cary Grant talking like that in public.

And evidently he said something mean about Charlton Heston (again for political reasons) when the man had Alzheimer's. Clooney's aunt was the old-time singing star Rosemary Clooney, someone shot back at Clooney here: "Evidently class skips a generation." Clooney then said he didn't know that Heston HAD Alzheimers. Digging the hole deeper. "Dumb movie star."

I don't think Clooney's politics are the problem -- most folks in Hollywood have them. I think its how he tended to express himself off screen, as such a jerk about it.

People noticed. Including, of dangerous recent vintage -- Quentin Tarantino.

reply

[deleted]

"Wolfs" looks so boring that I could not even finish trailer. Not gonna see it even for free.

reply

Are you and roger1 the same poster. Because I feel this whole thing is written by the same person with three different names.

reply

Are you and roger1 the same poster. Because I feel this whole thing is written by the same person with three different names.

--

Ha...roger1 returns to say "No." Alas, I AM now TWO names -- roger1 presently and ecarle going back years before then -- and it still bothers me. I've been roger1 for about a year now and I'm just not used to it. But it looks like I can't get ecarle back so...here I am.

I will admit that I entered here because emori did the hard work of specifying the grosses of the George Clooney career. I came in with this list "whittled down" from that work because LOOK at it. LOOK at all the movies that George Clooney has appeared in that simply didn't hvae much impact at the box office or staying power:

The Peacemaker
The American
The Good German
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Leatherheads
The Men Who Stare at Goats
The Monuments Men
Tomorrowland
Hail Caesar
Money Monster

And I thought of this one, too, a romantic couple comedy with Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer:

One Fine Day (1996)

One supposes that the romantic plot COULD have fueled one of those bit hit Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan comedies but...not with George Clooney in it. (That said Hanks and Ryan had TWO hits -- Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail and ONE flop: Joe Vs. the Volcano.)

In the 80''s there was a satire magazine called Spy and they called out certain movie stars as "Unstoppables" -- actors who got movies all the time but never got hits (at the time, Robert DeNiro was on that list but he used The Untouchables, Midnight Run and Backdraft to GET bankable.)

Well, George Clooney is an "unstoppable."

I've entered this fray not out of any hatred for George Clooney the man, or the Movie Star. Its been more like curiosity for me: how did THAT guy keep a career going for THAT long without dropping out?

It opens some side bars that others have taken up in this (great) thread for indeed the modern concern is: do movie stars really EXIST anymore?

The best line I've read on this is: "Movie stars have never been paid more and mattered less." BECAUSE: when they are in billion-dollar grossing Marvel movies etc they HAVE to get paid big(percentages) on the natural, but it is not the movie star that audiences CAME TO SEE.

Its a different era. When Bogart was a movie star, not only did people come to see "the new Bogart movie" but he was usually in SMALL dramas or mystery movies. Special effects and blockbusters weren't part of the star career of Bogart -- BOGART was the draw.

It was the same with John Wayne -- for decades. His fans came to see ...John Wayne. Not the movie.

The late screenwriter William Goldman, in his seminal Hollywood book "Adventures in the Screen Trade" noted that movie stars for the most part had "short shelf lives." About 20 years in most cases and, noted Goldman "that's not very long in the career of a doctor or a lawyer."

CONT

reply

Goldman illustrated his point by listing the "Top Ten Stars" 10 years apart (as published in an official list):

1961:

Elizabeth Taylor
Rock Hudson
Doris Day
John Wayne
Cary Grant
Sandra Dee
Jerry Lewis
William Holden
Tony Curtis
Elvis Presley

1971:

John Wayne
Clint Eastwood
Paul Newman
Steve McQueen
George C. Scott
Dustin Hoffman
Walter Matthau
Ali MacGraw
Sean Connery
Lee Marvin

(Only John Wayne made it from 1961 to 1971.)

1981:

Burt Reynolds
Clint Eastwood
Dudley Moore
Dolly Parton
Jane Fonda
Harrison Ford
Alan Alda
Bo Derek
Goldie Hawn
Bill Murray

(Only Clint Eastwood made it from 1971 to 1981.)

NOW: For most of those people, as long as they were Top Ten ONCE, they made their names and most kept working AS "famous names" for many years, some more than others. From the 1981 list we have some REALLY OLD surviving stars today: Clint Eastwood(in his 90s, an anomoly and not too active as an actor), Harrison Ford, Bill Murray, Jane Fonda(who retired for a decade or so to marry Ted Turner and came back.)

Personally, I don't know if George Clooney ever made one of those Top Ten lists(they are yearly), but he did make a lot of movies.

Personally, I can hit George Clooney with some comments here because (1) He's worth 100s of millions of dollars; (2) I don't matter and...well, the "study of movie stars" -- how they thrive, how they survive -- is a fun hobby that can perhaps give us some sense of how to advance in our own lives. (Though not really, most of us have to toil in real life jobs and will NEVER hit the jackpot that movie stars at ANY level do.)

I've seen many George Clooney movies and I must admit, I was surprised sometimes: Out of Sight got great reviews and was a thriller -- how come nobody came? Could it be...George Clooney? They didn't WANT to come see George Clooney? Why? On the other hand, "The American" and "The Good German" and Leatherheads just seemed not to have STORIES worth coming to see. Clooney didn't pick too good.

CONT

reply

Here's an interesting comparison:

Tarantino has also dissed Ryan Reynolds for making $50 million a "movie" for NETFLIX movies that are pretty much forgettable, NOT movies. But who is to blame Reynolds? He can't really have the career that Paul Newman had as a star in the 50s, 60s, 70s...dramas mainly, middling gross movies with good reviews.

It DOES seem to me that George Clooney HAS tried to have the Paul Newman career: a series of medium budget "serious" movies in which he lent his great looks and voice to stories that "mean something." Just not to audiences.


By the way, in terms of two guys who spent a decade DEFINITELY being movie stars(in terms of drawing audiences or picking movies that DID draw audiences) take a look at "the two Toms" of the 90ss NINETIES ONLY , plus one 2000 movie):

Tom Hanks:

A League of Their Own
Sleepless in Seattle
Philadelphia(Best Actor for Tom)
Forrest Gump(back to back Best Actor for Tom, Best Picture, 400 million gross or thereabouts.)
Apollo 13
Saving Private Ryan
The Green Mile
Cast Away(2000)

Big hits, all --though I left out the low grosser "That Thing You Do"(Hanks directed and took a small supporting role.)

Tom Cruise:

Days of Thunder
Far and Away
A Few Good Men
The Firm
Interview with the Vampire
Mission Impossible
Jerry McGuire
Eyes Wide Shut(3 years after Jerry McGuire; Kubrick's long shoot kept Tom from taking other acting jobs)
Magnolia
Mission Impossible 2 (2000)

Now, generally Tom Hanks had MORE 100 million plus domestic grosses and two Best Actor Oscars in the 90s (Tom Cruise still has none.) But Tom Cruise had his own set of big grossers and "artistic triumphs" at the end with Eyes Wide Shut and Magnolia.

And...you really don't have George Clooney performing at that level. Except he DID win one acting Oscar(for Syrianna in 2005' Best Supporting Actor) and that is a acheivement that helped keep him going. George Clooney has an acting Oscar. Tom Cruise does not.

---

CONT

reply

That screenwriter William Goldman said movie stars KNOW that their careers will cool eventually. Modernly, they make so much money, after 20 years they can quit if they want to and never work again at that pay level.

But modernly, lots of movie stars --including OLD movie stars do NOT have to quit. Not as long as streaming and high pay is around. Kevin Costner AND Harrison Ford have profitted from the "Yellowstone" franchise. Sly and Arnold BOTH have streaming series(as "old tough guys.")

Versus Clooney's rather decades long non-performance, I offer up three "drop offs and comebacks":

John Travolta: Saturday Night Fever and Grease back to back were huge blockbusters that made Travolta a "big star" (its often the movies that hit, not the star.) But Moment to Moment was a flop, Urban Cowboy only did OK, and DePalma's Blow Out underperformed. And then Travolta crashed and burned in the rest of the 80s. Weirdly, two of his biggest flops connected to Saturday Night Fever AND Grease. "Stayin' Allive" was the awful sequel(directed by Sly Stallone) to Saturday Night Fever and Travolta joined Olivia Newton John in a flop(Two of a Kind) that had nothing of the impact of Grease.

Travolta survived for a few years on the "Look Who's Talking" talking baby movies(his face wasn't even on the first one's poster) and then, famously, Tarantino "brought him back" with Pulp Fiction.

And Travolta did something BRILLIANT. As soon as he had his Pulp Fiction comeback, he booked himself for something like 5 movies in a row in the FUTURE and at "superstar pay"(after all everybody knew who he was.) He "took insurance' against another fall. But: His career lasted about another 20 years at top level and now he's a straight to streaming guy.

CONT

reply

Arnold: Arnold was legitmately successful throughout his career -- from bodybuilder to movie star -- but always a bit of a showboating con man about his career. He had FUN gloating about his big paydays as he worked his way up from B movies to A movies. He was also careful to TRY to branch out -- to comedy (Twins, Kindergarten Cop) from violent action. What he could NOT do was...drama. He just wasn't that good an actor.

Arnold had the biggest hit of 1991 in Terminator 2 and thought he would be bigger than ever. But the collapse came suddenly: "The Last Action Hero" in 1993 was a surprise bomb(failing against Jurassic Park) and Arnold got the WORST Batman movie in 1997 in Batman and Robin(failing against Jurassic Park II: The Lost World.) Need I note that -- George Clooney --played Batman in that one? Arnold's last major movie was in there -- True Lies(1994) but Hollywood saw that as James Cameron's acheivement. After "Batman and Robin," Schwarzenegger kept up the gloating con man routine even as he KNEW he wasn't getting A budgets or properties anymore. (As Clooney was pulled from The Man From UNCLE, Arnold was pulled from I Am Legend and Planet of the Apes; replaced by Smith and Wahlberg.) He found an escape hatch: Governor of California for two terms. "Movies have to wait," Arnold said as he took 8 years back. He's BACK, but in low budget fare and streaming. Still, he WAS a superstar and he IS rich.

Nicolas Cage: In 1997, John Travolta and Nicolas Cage were big , top stars in "Face/Off." Travolta kept his comeback going but Cage went downhill fast (despite a Best Actor Oscar for "Leaving Las Vegas.") Evidently Cage's BIG problem was that he overspent himself into brokeness -- that's HARD, modern movie stars aren't supposed to go broke. Anyway, Cage EARNED his way back from poverty with NOTHING but straight to video, straight to streaming work and -- it looks like he's finally done enough good work to get to be in some "real movies" again. We shall see.

CONT

reply

So against those Hollywood careers(and I left out the ladies because -- they don't have the same careers)...George Clooney has survived. His Netflix movie with Julia Roberts was a small comeback -- but really "straight to streaming." And I guess we can accept that $300 million tequila profit as real (I'm guessing its not that high.)

And now comes "Wolfs" in the wake of the Tarantino Diss.

We shall see. That's the great thing about watching movie stars. They rise, they fall...they rise again...or maybe not.

Its fun to watch.

reply

Tarantino's comment about Clooney would reflect Pitt's career if Tarantino himself hadn't made Pitt relevant again, so I don't really get his point.

reply

Tarantino revived Travolta's career, but Pitt never needed his help. Other than being foolish enough to let his then wife direct him, the only modest flop he starred in was "Allied," and even legit superstars should be afforded a mulligan every now and then.

reply

Robert Zemeckis directed Allied. This is where things went south with Pitt’s marriage when it was thought he was falling in love with Marion. So much so that Cotillard had to come out and do this huge interview to say that it was not true. Allied wasn’t that bad.

Biggest flop. For me, it was Seven Years in Tibet.

Allied or By the Sea (directed by Jolie)? The flop?
There was a fantastic photoshoot in 2005 W magazine of both of them - Domestic Bliss: Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt at Home - showing them with 3 small boys in the ‘60s - style of mid-century - marriage falling apart - alcohol and domestic violence. I still have this publication. It was kind of preordained. I’m assuming the movie, By the Sea, was similar.

reply

Respectfully disagree, but to each their own opinion.

reply

Tarantino's comment about Clooney would reflect Pitt's career if Tarantino himself hadn't made Pitt relevant again, so I don't really get his point.
--

Well, generally that's true -- like Clooney, Brad Pitt made a lot of pictures -- particuarly early on -- that failed to bring in big audiences.

Like Paul Newman , Pitt seemed willing to "go against his looks" and play such roles as a greasy haired, mentally challenged psychopathic kiiler in "Kalifornia" and the dishevelled nutcase advisor to Bruce Willis in "Twelve Monkeys"(he was Oscar nomeed for that one.)

I recall an article being written about Pitt after he had had a series of underperforming films that "the studios believe that Brad Pitt WILL happen as a star, he just needs a lot of vehicles for it to happen." This is in line with Cary Grant's advice to new young actors seeking stardom: "Make as many movies as you can so the audience gets to know you-- so you are as familiar as a Heinz ketchup bottle as a product."

Pitt played off his gorgeous but somewhat reptilian young good looks in "Thelma and Louise"(his start), Legends of the Fall, and "Meet Joe Black." Like a lot of pretty men he has aged into a more handsome and weathered MAN(see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.)

Pitt's movies for Tarantino -- Inglorious Basterds(2009) and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) are a full ten years apart but helped anchor his legitimate stardom over a decade. Moneyball was a hit and Pitt got a Best Actor nomination(versus George Clooney for the very good "The Descendants." ) Pitt and Clooney joked about "a good competition" at the Oscar ceremony -- but that French guy won.

Back in the 90s, I'd say that 1995's
s Se7en" (and its unforgettably horrific climax twist) was a legit hit for Pitt -- and then in 1999 he got himself a low box office cult classic in "Fight Club" that lived on and on.

CONT

reply

Tarantino was hoping to work again with Pitt on the now-defunct "final QT film" -- The Movie Critic. That would have been three QT movies starring Brad Pitt and indeed, QT has NEVER worked with George Clooney again after "From Dusk Til Dawn" (which was only WRITTEN by QT; not directed by him.)

One thing about the Ocean's Eleven remake that amused me: Pitt and Clooney were very handsome, movie starrish men in the first one (wrote one critic about that scene where they got in elevator -- "its the most handsome elevator ride in movie history) but....they were NOT as big as Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin when they made the original. Frank was both a top movie star AND the greatest adult singer of his time; Dino was coming off the total domination of Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin as a team...and coming into his own as both a singer and an actor. The rest of "the Rat Pack" had their cachet -- Sammy Davis Jr. as a multi-talented black entertainerr -- of all of them, he's the only one who was a great DANCER -- Peter Lawford as an in-law to the Kennedys; Joey Bishop as a TV star comedian.

The 2001 Ocean's Eleven guys lacked the "multi-talent" of the singers and politically connected men who came before them...

reply

He was in The Flash! How bigger of a star can a person be? :-)

reply

I always assumed that Clooney & Tarantiono probably didn't quite hit it off while filming 'From Dusk Till Dawn', considering they never worked together again after that film. It's kind of a shame because I thought they worked well together in that film & could have worked well together in future projects over the course of their careers. I guess Tarantino still isn't exactly Clooney's biggest fan for whatever reason.

reply

I guess Tarantino still isn't exactly Clooney's biggest fan for whatever reason.

---

One possibility in 2024: Tarantino is currently married to an Israeli supermodel and lives with her and their children part of each year in Israel.

reply

Good for Clooney.

Tarantino has made a few good movies but he's an opinionated asshole at times.

reply

How exactly does one "clap back"?

What a stupid expression.

reply

The term ultimately derives from a 2003 song by Ja Rule, appropriately titled “Clap Back.” The phrase is the meat of the hook (“Clap back, we gon' clap back”), which answers what Ja Rule and his crew will do to rappers who disrespect them. (I copied this from somewhere.)

reply

Neither is Pitt. But how many are there in total? The whole idea has all but expired.

reply