“Licorice Pizza”

[quote] Ellen Page in Juno.

LITERAL VIOLENCE!!!!!

Why am I not surprised anymore?

It’s set in 70s LA. Asian racism was the norm.

Just saw it and am a bit surprised at the praise it’s getting. It was was just a bunch of nothing that goes nowhere. The romance was not developed or believable. The age gap was only brought up once, which was odd considering he was 15 an she 25! It was no Boogie Nights that’s for sure.

The ugly leads who got their roles through great connections are a turn off. I don’t want to watch a movie that’s a favor to someone more successful.

The title bothers me.

That was another thing, R5. The leads were unattractive. At first my friend and I thought that was the point, but as the movie wore on that didn’t seem to be the case. She had a lot of male attention. The young male lead also got female attention and there were some remarks that he was cute. I don’t like calling people ugly, but he was. A lot of times more attractive people are cast to play ugly to average. This was the reverse. I think the script called for more attractive people.

R7, how was Bradley Cooper?

There’s a cartoon ad/poster and Alana Haim looks way prettier as that than in real life wtf.

Ha..

R7, Cooper was pretty good, over the top, but he was funny. Not in it for very long though.

Oops, meant R8.

Thank you!

R9, that’s probably because the marketing team knew their female romantic lead was a dog. Maybe an illustration can soften those harsh lines.

Oh well. She’s apparently in a band in the LA area so she’s more important than the Pope and now we have to have her shoved down our throats.

Thanks for “being honest” OP.

R4 Yes, it’s a nostalgia trip, basically.

It's Barbra Streisand with an S!

Not...Liza with a Z!

R14 HAIM got a bunch of Grammy nods earlier this year.

Are some of you new to the world? In the 70s there were tons of not that attractive girls and guys who were considered “cute” or “pretty” then but would be considered dogs now. Social media wasn’t a thing. Internet wasn’t a thing. People got what they could in person.

I found her oddly attractive. Face not so much but her body was good and she carried herself well and with a confidence that can make someone think she’s better than she is.

He was an entrepreneur who many saw on tv.

The band Haim has a pretty decent following. The guy was even worse, I had no idea until R5 mentioned connections and I googled, that Cooper Hoffman was Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s son! He kept reminding me of someone too and he really resembles his dad. Not a bad actor, but like his dad, I see him as a character actor and/or sidekick. You’d think they would at least invest in braces with the money they have.

Again though, the movie had no focus, no plot. I really didn’t care about what happened to them because you don’t really know them. Random note, Leonardo DiCaprio’s dad had a really small part.

Because the movie is about the two characters. It’s character driven. Not plot driven. That’s why I loved it. We need less plot driven movies. People aren’t smart enough to understand them.

The title is unbelievably pretentious.

The title is perfectly named after a store that existed in that area in the 70s.

R20, I love character driven films, but this ain’t it. This was just a lot of nothingness with no character depth.

I disagree r23. It was a story about this 25 year old woman and 15 year old guy and how they end up together. It felt fresh and Alana was wonderful

The trailer with Life on Mars is really grabbing me, so it’s worth seeing? Or not?

So it's a character and vibe driven movie? I really like those when done well.

Vibe driven?

Yeah like its mostly weak on plot but the scenes string together in a why that have a certain vibe or cohesion.

*in a way

This movie feels way too white for me. And I say that as a white man.

A white gay woke^.

Gays are woke in themselves r31. Stop using that word. You being gay makes you a case of WOKENESS.

I’m ex-gay.

Excellent point, R32, and one that too many here tend to forget. They love to throw around the word "woke" as a way of diminishing anything that they feel helps people of color, conveniently forgetting that gays, including white gays, are also a minority that has greatly benefited over the years from that very same "wokeness" that they've come to despise so much. Yes, it can go too far at times but so has the backlash against it as we see every day now via comments from bigoted assholes like R31 (who, by the way, I already had on block).

Gay is not woke.

Yes. It is. Black isn’t woke.

If gay is woke—then get me to reparative therapy NOW.

Yes, including gays is WOKE. Gays have marriage now and can live life as equals because of the WOKE movement. Wake the fuck up.

R37 How is being black woke r37? That doesn’t make sense. A skin color isn’t chosen. you taking up the ass is.

No thanks^. This is why don’t care about gay rights anymore.

[quote]A skin color isn’t chosen. you taking up the ass is.

haha. Okay.

Skin color is chosen r41?

Yes.

Who’s upvoting R38? That’s depressing.

I saw it this evening- the production design and costumes were quite amazing and expressed something truthful about the early 70s which I don’t think a lot of movies have achieved. It seems the idea was to show a panorama of LA/ So Cal culture of the period and how show biz is interconnected with “real life”. I thought the leads were appealing and I’m glad they didn’t go with more polished types.

Does anyone know who the Sean Penn and Tom Waits characters are based on? Also, Bradley Cooper stole the movie as Jon Peters but I am wondering what in actual reality or history is this interpretation based on (other than him being Mr Barbra Streisand and a hairstylist turned movie producer)?

Similarly to the Coen brothers’ “Hail Caesar”, I’m not sure bringing up/regurgitating Lucy and “Yours, Mine, Ours” type of Hollywood trivia is all that meaningful or in itself interesting.

[quote]Does anyone know who the Sean Penn and Tom Waits characters are based on?

Penn's character is based on William Holden.

[quote]Also, Bradley Cooper stole the movie as Jon Peters but I am wondering what in actual reality or history is this interpretation based on (other than him being Mr Barbra Streisand and a hairstylist turned movie producer)?

The real Gary and his friends did deliver a waterbed to Peters, the rest about him was embellished.

I liked the intermix of fact and fiction in the film GQ has a joint interview with Benny Safdie and Joel Wachs, who Safdie plays in the film and Wachs talks about the differences between fact and fiction of his career.

How do they get away with portraying peters the way they do? He must have been an asshole if nobody objected to this portrayal.

I think haim was cast because she has that Streisand kind of look about her. I also thought she resembled a slimmer mama cass facially. R7 I think that the only reason Gary was getting female attention was because he was a somewhat known actor and the air hostess was starstruck. As for the girl- she seems the type straight men would go for, an unassuming girl with a decent looking body who looks somewhat fragile and in need of a protector.

A Close Reading of ‘Licorice Pizza’s’ Japanese Wife Scenes:

If you're going to cast unconventional newbies as the leads to be edgy and artsy, the entire film also needs those types.

When the famous charismatic actors show up in their cameos and light up the screen, then we are reminded of what we've been missing out on.

As stated above, we're a long ways away from Boogie Nights

Disagree. It’s ok for beautiful people and non beautiful people to live amongst each other

[quote]How do they get away with portraying peters the way they do?

Peters gave PTA his blessing.

But Jon Peters, who is a real person, appears as Jon Peters in this movie. Did you tell him he was a character in the film?

PTA: I called him and let him know that we would be telling this story and he would be a character in it, and he seemed perfectly excited and happy about it. He was very sweet and said, “You can do whatever you’d like to do, but please just get my pickup line in there.” And I said, “What was your pickup line?” And he said, “I’d go to a girl and ask her if she’d like a peanut butter sandwich.” And I said, “Did it work?” And he said, “Yes, it worked.” So we put that in.

In the film, Jon Peters is hyper-aggressive when Gary and Alana deliver a waterbed to his house. Did that happen?

PTA: Gary would tell me stories about delivering waterbeds, and he told me a story about delivering waterbeds to Jon Peters’ house, and he said, “He was the greatest guy in the world. He brought us in. He said take your time boys. I’m off to the movies. Enjoy yourselves.” I thought, well that’s not very dramatic. We need the exact opposite to happen. So I created a monster version of Jon Peters from things that I had heard over the years. I took everything I’d heard about any Hollywood producer of that time that had a reputation for a lot of bravado and aggro energy, and placed it there.

She’s ugly.

R22

And to the 99.9% of people who didn’t live in SFV in the 70’s, the title is pretentious and fucking stupid.

R51 thanks for clearing that up.

So I am the poster who didn’t like it. However, after the reading the thread, there was a lot that I didn’t realize. I wasn’t born in 1973, didn’t really know this was based on true life. Like I didn’t recognize Tom Waits, didn’t really know who William Holden was, didn’t know Jon Peters eccentricity (knew he was a producer). So I might not have been the right audience for this. I still stand by the fact that there was little in character development or cohesiveness story. It was just random segments strewn together.

[quote]. I still stand by the fact that there was little in character development or cohesiveness story. It was just random segments strewn together

I wasn't overly wowed by it. I loved the first half of the film and the focus on Gary and Alana's relationship, but things shifted when it became the focus shifted to these random characterizations and cameos Sean Penn, Tom Waite, then Alana's storyline with Joel Wachs. It was like two different films.

Overall, I really enjoyed it on the strength of the actors. I like Alana Haim's acting more than I like Haim's music. Her entire family - who played her family - were really good. I even enjoyed seeing Leonardo DiCaprio's father George. I wish the story was stronger.

I was sort of relieved nothing awful happened. I spent the first hour of the movie waiting for someone to get murdered or some rape to happen. But it was gentle and fun. It wasn't earth-shattering, but it was nice. It didn't add up to much, though.

[quote] The ugly leads

Movie opens with tie leads who look like real people rather than Barbie and Ken dolls.

Homosexualists lose their collective shit.

^^^ two leads

I hate the title of this movie.

"Homosexualists" don't lose their collective shit over movie leads who are more average looking, they lose it when those ordinary looking leads are also uncharismatic. There's a big difference between the two and one of the main sins of this movie

Miss r61 is telling you NOW so she doesn’t have to tell you LATER!

Meanwhile the narrative changes. Upthread it’s all “they’re UGLY.” Now it’s “they’re um UNCHARISMATIC!”

I hated "Once Upon a Time.....In Hollywood" so much that I hated "Licorice Pizza" by the trailer alone. To hell with these 70s SoCal wankfests.

Also, the trailer reminds me of "Almost Famous," another 70s nostalgia wankfest that I hated (though that movie was actually about something unlike the Tarantino turd).

No narrative changes here r62 the two leads of this movie are both ugly and uncharismatic

Why should audiences have to suffer because of PTA's obsessions with Fiona Apple and Philip Seymour Hoffman?

It’s about pedophilia (or ephebophilia). She is 25, he is 15. The movie does not even grapple with this as morally unacceptable

[quote]It’s ok for beautiful people and non beautiful people to live amongst each other

The fact this needed to be typed out saddens me.

OP, I got 24 seconds into the trailer but couldn't take more

R65 it was pretty common back then for whatever reason

It was more permissible for a teenage boy to pursue an older woman in those days. He'd much more likely be looked upon as a go-getting stud rather than any sort of victim

But this is a movie in 2021 and 2022. The movie should reflect today’s condemnation of such exploitive relationships.

R70 no. I like that it shows it how it was.

Yep, NC is absolutely booming right now, both in population and new corporate locations

Most pretentious title since Vanilla Sky.

I loved this movie, but as a Millennial that grew up in relatively cold, rural areas I tend to romanticize what it must have been like to grow up in 70s SoCal. This is definitely a coming-of-age love story, but the setting is the main character. It must have been amazing to grow-up like that (great music, lots to do, lots of places for just teens to hang out, very little parental supervision, etc)

Finally saw it yesterday. I thought it was great, my husband (normally a PTA fan) didn’t much like it for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread - lack of cohesion, not enough insight into Alana and Gary’s relationship, and too long.

Which it was - I admit when it got around to the Joel Wachs storyline around the top of hour 2, I started to get restless. But overall it worked for me — I thought it showed something true about being a teenager and young adult, and some of the set pieces were the great filmmaking that I expect from PTA. Particularly liked the Sean Penn-Tom Waits sequence.

Finally saw it yesterday. I thought it was great, my husband (normally a PTA fan) didn’t much like it for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread - lack of cohesion, not enough insight into Alana and Gary’s relationship, and too long.

Which it was - I admit when it got around to the Joel Wachs storyline around the top of hour 2, I started to get restless. But overall it worked for me — I thought it showed something true about being a teenager and young adult, and some of the set pieces were the great filmmaking that I expect from PTA. Particularly liked the Sean Penn-Tom Waits sequence.

Finally saw it yesterday. I thought it was great, my husband (normally a PTA fan) didn’t much like it for some of the reasons mentioned in this thread - lack of cohesion, not enough insight into Alana and Gary’s relationship, and too long.

Which it was - I admit when it got around to the Joel Wachs storyline around the top of hour 2, I started to get restless. But overall it worked for me — I thought it showed something true about being a teenager and young adult, and some of the set pieces were the great filmmaking that I expect from PTA. Particularly liked the Sean Penn-Tom Waits sequence.

Oh god I’m sorry for that triple post! DL is wonky on my smartphone.

So when did you finally see it?

R74 I didn’t get that impression at all. I love California set movies usually like “breezy” and “save the tiger”… that were from that era. This film looked authentic in that respect but I didn’t think they captured much excitement or anything. Tbh it looked pretty boring.

They did a remarkable job making Sean Penn look like William Holden. I also noticed in the credits the sassy old lady who kept mentioning Alana's "very Jewish nose" was supposed to be famed talent agent, Mary Grady.

Played by DL fave Harriet Samson Harris, r81!

Poor pizza.

I grew up in SoCal in the 70s (San Diego area) and I have no real reason why I have no need to see this except I want to slap smug Alana Haim's face. Something about her. And I also have a problem with the 10 year age differential...while this was more acceptable in the 70s, it's very difficult to see that a 25 year old woman in prime of life would choose to have a relationship with a 15 year old boy. This seems highly unlikely; I never saw this type of relationship dynamic growing up. The other way around - yes.

I really liked the film - it’s a shaggy dog story that is more about atmosphere and incident than plot but it was very enjoyable to me. I particularly like the way the 70s is portrayed so accurately - from the look of everything to the fact that the world, even Hollywood, was so much smaller back then. As one review observed - if you wanted anything to happen back then you had to pick up a phone and call someone or physically go somewhere - which now feels as alien as the vastly different outlook on the age difference in the romance.

The movie takes the fact that kids, especially once you were 12 or so, were mostly just left to their own devices to a absurdly entertaining degree - but it really does capture sometime true about growing up in a world where parents that did the opposite of helicopter.

Who's PTA?

The Parent-Teacher Association, Rose!

R86 Petty Trump Admirers?

R85…your last comment about the latch key generation was spot on…I was 12 in 1974 and the kids in the neighborhood ran around like a wolf pack…we just had to be home by sundown…it was a very different time…the whole helicopter parent thing was pretty much non-existent… now we are into the snowflake generation….and I enjoyed the movie…brought back some nice memories of SoCal summers…

I assume the guy outside the closeted politician's office, and later in the restaurant, was a rejected trick reduced to stalking.

LP was the first film I've seen since lockdown, and I loved it.

Glorifying pedophilia is apparently ok in this movie because the leads are so heinous to look at you assume they’re all anyone wants. It’s still gross and wrong when a 25 year old is attracted to a teenager and it speaks volumes about their mental state when they can’t find someone their own age for a healthy relationship. She’s a pedo in 70s clothing.

I've watched the trailer and all i could think about was how the leads were unactractive , i mean, they were extremally ugly

R92, would that prevent you from watching a movie with a great storyline and script, even if the leads are good actors?

She isn’t a fucking pedo. Pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children. I didn’t care for the film, but I think the point is that this woman is stunted. She is flawed and maybe even unlikable. The 70s were a different time and it would be disingenuous to pretend this sort of dysfunctional shit wasn’t happening out in the open.

Call me crazy, but I think Alana's pretty cute. Her eyes are very close together. That's the only thing that I find jarring about her face.

I enjoyed her cameo in Thundercat's "Dragonball Durag" video. What's good enough for Thundercat is good enough for me.

God, I hated this movie. The two leads are obnoxious and charmless. And physically repugnant. Where was the make-up team when they called “last looks”? Sean Penn is badly cast as a conventional Hollywood leading man-it should have been Jon Hamm. Yes, Harriet Sansom is hilarious in her one scene as Lani O’Grady’s mother. Tom Waites is always fucking annoying. And condolences to that poor actor who had to do that appalling Chinese “accent” not once but twice. No amount of articles in Vulture will sway me from my belief that shit was racist in the extreme.

Oops, well, of course it was a Japanese “accent,” but whatever.

I liked it a lot.

20somethings fucking teens was a lot more accepted back then, especially when it was a teen boy and woman.

I felt the leads looked like real, ordinary people, with features especially suited to the period — which is sort of the point of the film. it’s a look back at an era not with heavy nostalgia but more of a wry “warts and all” sensibility, and an insiders de-glamorization of the entertainment industry - which is just another way for a hustler to make a buck.

R99, yes but in LA the cliches/stereotypes are real. Only “pretty people” thrive there. Or at least attractive people do. The two leads are hideous looking. And I felt trapped having to look at their hideous faces for over two hours.

R100 nope.

Alana Haim will look absolutely gorgeous when all dressed up for the red carpet at this years Oscars.

A non-traditional beauty. She reminds me of a Modigliani painting.

I actually loved her in the movie

Didn’t like the movie but I thought the performances were good.

R103, really? You need to head over to Spec Savers.

R90, I don’t remember the film that well since I don’t like it, but if I recall correctly, I think the guy lurking around is a reporter that wants to out Wachs.

She IS a “pedo” in the film. She’s 25 and he’s 15. He’s a teenaged boy. Technically still a child in the eyes of the law and mentally unable to make decisions based on emotionally sound logic. It’s gross.

I loved the movie. I'm going to get the blu-ray when it goes on sale.

[quote]I enjoyed her cameo in Thundercat's "Dragonball Durag" video. What's good enough for Thundercat is good enough for me.

I could not agree more!

I loved it. Great soundtrack as well. Do we think it is going to sweep award season?

No. Because it sucks.

I liked but did NOT love the film. And I'm a PTA fan. It seemed to swing around a lot. They go from screaming at each other to a cut right to them running around giggling. "What did you do!?" It almost felt like vignettes slapped together in parts. At one point I started to wonder if it was going to be a movie with a movie and they were "actors" in some parts and characters in others. I mean some of those lines with Sean Penn and other parts. They were a bit too movie but maybe that was the intent. I'm glad she asked if he was speaking dialogue or talking for real? It just shot from drama to comedy, mad at each other to not, sniping one minute and giggling the next. All at a rapid pace. I was creeped to out by the age difference but agree those things have happened and I found it more believable in a way because he was rich and a bit famous so it would make him a little more interesting to her to at least even stick around. And him having an acting career and money gives a bit more of a grown up feel. Because it portrays responsibility. He was always shown taking care of the kids and having a great rapport with them with a sort of a parental feel. He puts his little brother to bed in the opening scenes for instance. Overall good not great.

Terrible movie. King Richard for best picture!!!!

I'm waiting for the all-Afro remake.

It's called Black Licorice Pizza.

Finally saw this last night. Maybe it's to the film's credit that I am unsure what I think a day later? I have mixed feelings as of now. I laughed a lot, I though Haim was terrific, loved the period detail and soundtrack, etc. But when all was said and done I don't know if it's a movie I will look back on with fondness and want to see again. It's certainly too long and the celebrity cameos were more distracting than anything.

I almost feel like it's cruel to let homely non-actors experience the intoxicating excitement of a Hollywood movie shoot not realizing they may never experience it again?

Loved it. Tom Waits was based on Mark Robson, who Patty Duke Astin HATED during the making of Valley of the Dolls. He made the real life movie with Bill Holden that the characters in the film discuss. Christine Ebersole was pretty rough on Lucy, I have to say.

I was getting a bit thrown off by the timeline. Things like that Teen Expo seemed like they'd be taking place in 1966, and the below number was originally taped in 1968. But then I realized they were taking 8 years of real life stories, and condensing them into a few months.

I love the early 70s, and I love the Valley, so... I adored this picture.

There were a lot of in-jokes in this movie that only those who worked in the entertainment industry would understand.

R119 true. Boy, did I laugh when John C. Reilly showed up as Fred Gwynne/Herman Munster.

Jesus Christ her face is….hard to look at and find remotely fuck able.

Sooooo... Can someone explain why the politician invited Alana to the restaurant ? So she could take the boyfriend home ? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I felt like the scene was written so she could realise the man she idolized and had a crush on wasn't the honest politician she thought and definitely wasn't interested in her and was awful to his boyfriend. Realizing he is Mr Wrong, she goes back to the pimply teenager,not the handsome colleague who loves her.

Right ?

It still doesn't explain, why Whachs invited her to the restaurant, claiming it would be fun to have a drink together.

Why the fuck was this shitty movie nominated for an Oscar?? I just watched it because I like watching the top movie nominations. I was like what is this movie even about? It seemed to have no real premise. I didn’t give a fuck about the characters or their story. PTA I liked Boogie Nights. This was shit IMO.

My favorite movie this year. And the ugly girl with the big nose from Haim was perfect

It’s pretty obvious why he invited her. He knew her personality and set her up to beard for him. He knew she would take the realization well and he could use her so he could go to a restaurant with his boyfriend. It’s the same as like Shawn mendes and Camilla whatever going to eat at craigs in LA knowing that shawns boyfriend will be there. That scene was pretty obvious

Alana Haim is so ugly it hurt to look at her.

HOWEVER, she fit the role perfectly. People weren’t all perfect looking in the 70s. I liked that PTA cast realistic looking people.

I liked the movie. It was a pretty raw look at the so-called good old days where nobody said anything about casual racism and 25 year old and a 15 year old running around together. Bradley Cooper was also hysterical.

R122 it was pretty clear. They explained it. There was a reporter or operative in the restaurant. She was meant to leave with the boyfriend. And if anyone asked, they were to claim they were dating.

Pretty simple.

I adore the movie. The girl isn't that ugly. Like, real world ugly.

She was Sophia Coppola ugly. But yes she was not that ugly , her personality made her looks better

The movie was ok. The leads were ok. Like his films but probably won't watch this again.

I don't mind non-conventional looks, but her face is compelling for the wrong reasons. I hope people don't start trying to make her happen. There's enough ugliness in the world.

Thank you R125 and R127.

Still, the way he does it doesn't sound like something a real person would do. He shoves the beard role upon her( and the boyfriend) like that, in a public place. It seems like the best way to create a scandal and out himself.

Sorry, it looked like a story device to me, there just to generate Alana's disillusion. Not something a closet gay politician would do. Not that way.

Anyway, the movie had some fun vignettes. But it didn't amount to much and was very forgettable.

I don't agree. The politician's felt his back was against the wall. He was desperate, and in what he felt was an impossible situation. And, I think we know that desperate politicians are capable of all sorts of shit.

I believe up to that point, he'd been formulating a plan to have Alana beard with HIM, but when he was trapped in the restaurant, he shifted the plan to his boyfriend.

R131 are you younger? Somehow, maybe having lived though those times, I see it as more plausible than you do.

I can't wait for the sequel:

Tomato Jujube

Alana Haim is beautiful and looks like a Modigliani painting.

I wonder if either of the 2 leads in this are going to be presenting at the Oscars this year. I'd love to see Alana all dressed up.

Damn, Alana sho is ugly

I watched it last night and HATED it. I love PTA, but this is so awful on many levels, and far too long. It seems the best explanation for making this movie is that he's got some mid-life crisis going with the actress and can't see how stupid the whole plot is. But it doesn't explain why Hollywood is pushing this as some great film. It reminds me of the movie La La Land, where I might not have hated it so much if I hadn't heard how it was one of the year's best movies. I don't like being lied to, also magazines are acting like Alana Haim is a beauty, ridiculous.

So Alana thinks she's too good for the kid and hopes to get with the politician, but then finds out he is gay and runs back to the kid and professes her love for his pimply ass? And her strict family throws out the atheist, but they don't think it's weird she spends all her time with pimply kids?

Woah woah woah, stop the clock, R137. If you didn't like it, I completely understand. We all have different tastes, and bring different experiences which color our impact how we react.

But, I loved it, and when I tell that to you, I'm not lying to you. I actually did love it.

Loved it

When is this thing streaming? It took nine months for 'Dear Evan Hansen" to stream and I'm glad I didn't PPV it. "Licorice Pizza" has been out since last November.

[quote]She IS a “pedo” in the film. She’s 25 and he’s 15. He’s a teenaged boy. Technically still a child in the eyes of the law and mentally unable to make decisions based on emotionally sound logic. It’s gross.

They didn't have sex so she isn't a "pedo", and she hasn't done anything wrong in the eyes of the law. If you think it's morally objectionable for them to have the relationship they had then that's your right but legally she couldn't go to jail for being friends with a teenager, showing him her boobs, and kissing him once.

[quote]Loved it. Tom Waits was based on Mark Robson, who Patty Duke Astin HATED during the making of Valley of the Dolls. He made the real life movie with Bill Holden that the characters in the film discuss. Christine Ebersole was pretty rough on Lucy, I have to say.

Tom waits is a caricature of Sam Fuller (director) - I recognized that right away. Gary even says Waits' character directed Fixed Bayonets, which was a Samuel Fuller film. Below is a picture of Fuller. In the next reply I'll put a picture of Mark Robson.

In the movie they mix a lot of stuff up for effect. Bill Holden was not known for riding motorcycles in films (that would be Steve McQueen, I'd say). Holden did a film called Breezy with Kay Lenz that seems to be the model for Rainbow, which Alana Haim's character auditions for. Holden was in The Bridges Of Toko Ri, which is called Toko San in the film.

Mark Robson photo.

By the way, I also loved the film.

Alaina Haim is a enigma. So ugly she’s hot. Lena Dunham wishes..

I don't think she's ugly, just plain. But she has the confidence of a hot girl and carries herself with confidence.

Steve should get his own movie.

There's plenty of statutory cases r141

and juries are a lot more willing to convict women in them than with sexual assault claims.

corruption of a minor is the winner there.

Why were they always running in the movie?