A Netflix sequel to Quentin Tarantino’s 2019 film Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood – titled The Continuing Adventures of Cliff Booth – is currently in post-production with David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) directing a script written by Tarantino.
Frequent Fincher/Tarantino collaborator Brad Pitt (Fight Club, Inglorious Basterds) is reprising his role as Cliff Booth, the tough-guy Hollywood stuntmanportrayed in the first movie.
For the sequel, it’s the late 70’s, and Cliff has transitioned from stuntman to “Hollywood studio fixer”. As a “fixer,” Booth would be the guy studios call when something—anything—needs to quietly disappear. Scandals, blackmail, problematic stars, even bodies. He operates in the shadows, loyal, unshakable, and totally unfazed by the dirt beneath Hollywood’s golden surface. It’s a natural evolution for a character already written as a war hero, stuntman, and possibly even a murderer (via World of Reel).
Co-starring alongside Pitt are Elizabeth Debicki (The Crown, Tenet), Scott Caan (Hawaii Five-0), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (The Trial of the Chicago 7), Carla Gugino (American Gangster), Corey Fogelmanis (I Wish You All the Best), JB Tadena (CW’s Kung Fu), Timothy Olyphant (Havoc), Peter Weller (Robocop), Holt McCallany (Shot Caller), Corey Fogelmanis (Mindhunter), Kyle Butenhoff (Laced), Lauren Glazier (Gone Girl), Barry Livingston (My Three Sons) and Karren Karagulian (Anora).
Side note: There was some buzz about Leonardo DiCaprio returning as Rick Dalton, but he reportedly passed on Netflix’s offer of $3 million for a single day of shooting.
Speaking on The Big Picture podcast, Sean Fennessey, who is a friend of Tarantino’s, had the following to say: “This probably should not be thought of as a sequel. It should be thought of as a follow-up that is connected to, but not the same as — the example that was cited to me was, think about how The Big Sleep, the Raymond Chandler adaptation starring Humphrey Bogart, is in the same world as Farewell, My Lovely, the 1975 Robert Mitchum movie, because they play the same character in that movie. But it’s different actors, different directors, and a different time in the storyline. They’re different… This will be like the further adventures of Cliff Booth, is my understanding of it. The only other important information that I’ve learned, that I think is confirmed, is that the movie takes place in 1977, which is roughly eight years after the events of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. So a different time in Cliff Booth’s life.”
The original film caused controversy with a scene that involved Cliff Booth’s (Pitt) interaction with Bruce Lee (played by Mike Moh). Shannon Lee, Bruce’s daughter, who runs the official Bruce Lee businesses and foundation, reportedly lodged a complaint with the Chinese film authorities demanding two scenes in which her late father is portrayed in a confrontation with Pitt’s stuntman character be excised, because they made the iconic Kung Fu star look arrogant. Her demands were supposedly the reason the movie was pulled from Chinese theaters one week before its release date (via LA Times).
With that said, it’d be pretty cool to see Mike Moh reprise his role as Bruce so the two could go another round, but unfortunately, that’s probably not in the cards.
The Continuing Adventures of Cliff Booth was originally headed straight to streaming, but now, Netflix is contemplating a more robust rollout, given its anticipation. As one theater executive tells Variety, Netflix won’t be “announcing a theatrical slate,” but will show up when it has “something special” — a deal that benefits both sides without reshaping either company’s business model. One of those “special” movies will very likely be The Continuing Adventures of Cliff Booth (via World of Reel).
We’ll keep you updated as we hear more. Until then, here’s the first Trailer:
It’s funny and sad how people are bitching about this. Very few people have anything constructive to share. The Killer ‘23 was an interesting and well thought out film, and although it wasn’t full on action, Fincher filmed those scenes well, and I’d like to see him do more action fare.
Totally agree with you there. People can’t take anything these days.
2025 David Fincher isn’t 1995 David Fincher. Man hasn’t made a top tier movie since Zodiac and that’s almost 2 decades ago now. He really belongs where he is now on Netflix. And now he’s doing a spinoff sequel of Tarantino’s most boring movie.
That’s ridiculous. Mank and The Killer ‘23 were good enough to be in theatres, but making movies for Netflix is not a downgrade. I like that he has a contract with them.
You could argue a 2 week token theatrical window doesn’t really count as a theatrical release. Also Netflix admitted that their content is designed to be watched while you are scrolling on your phone at the same time
Not all their content – just the ‘ambient viewing’ productions like ‘You’ etc. where the majority of the major plotpoints are verbal. ‘Ripley’ is a great example of programming that is not ambient viewing and relies on full visual engagement from the viewer.
I think there was a directive earlier this year that said production needed to shift to make more of their content “ambient”. Netflix doesn’t care if their content is any good its all about engagement and minutes watched (while you’re on your phone.Its all rather depressing. The Godfather Part 2 has the same value as 4 episodes of Season 5 You
Gone Girl was underrated as well.
Is it? I thought it got a reasonable amount of praise. I never felt that Gone Girl was under appreciated.
It’s hard to believe the man got his start directing music videos, and people usually look down upon them while claiming they’re “not real directors.” Fincher is certainly proof of the opposite.
I don’t get it. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Tarantino’s worst, especially because of his hubris and condescending perspective on for example Bruce Lee. How is this getting a sequel?
Tarantino did a lot of research into Brice Lee, and spoke to people who worked with hi, and he learned a different side to Bruce, due that his canonization as an icon, has never made public.
So he wasn’t doing it just to throw mud on Bruce’s reputation.
He did do research, but he was very selective with it. (And claims that he “always knew” in other interviews) Tarantino incorrectly states that Matthew Polly’s book confirms Lee was a disrespectful punk, and Polly himself had to reiterate that he never made such statements.
The stories of him having contempt for stuntmen and hitting them was also not true as the most severe thing he did to people on set was pull pranks from time to time. Gene LaBelle was brought in to teach Bruce how to move on camera, and not to beat him up.
It’s confusing since Tarantino has always boasted about being a huge Bruce Lee fan and has said that if he were still alive, he would have been Bill in Kill Bill, yet Once Upon makes Lee look like a dumbass.
I’m not one of those people who condemns Once Upon, but it’s just disappointing that Lee was portrayed as a chump.
Gold Bell Training on YouTube provides a more objective look at Bruce Lee while disproving a lot of rumors about him as well.
i always believed Bruce was just used to hong kong stuntmen, and initially didnt’ realize that in the USA wasn’t normal to actually hit the extras while shooting the fight sequences. that’s why some people believed he was rough and a bit of a prick, he was just trying to do a good job the way he knew it.
This probably won’t be a popular opinion…
Having read Polly’s book (and many others), the way QT portrayed Bruce in Hollywood felt pretty accurate to me. I never saw him as a dumbass in the flick. If anything, based on the Bruce Lee books and interviews I’ve read, I’ve always taken him as someone who was cocky, but could absolutely back it up. If anything, there are moments in Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story where they make Bruce look a little weak.
That said, this is the glory of perspective. Everyone brings their own POV and interpretation to it. If we all agreed 100% of the time, this world would be a boring place! =)
Everything else in Once Upon about Bruce was accurate. He certainly was cocky, flawed and had a big ego, but he wasn’t a punk either, and treated people on Green Hornet with respect.
That whole “Nobody kicked anyone’s ass! He barely touched me” bullshit certainly made him look weak as well as boasting about how he’d cripple Muhammad Ali. (In real life, Lee worshipped the ground Ali walked on and implemented Ali’s techniques into his own)
There can certainly be multiple perspectives about a figure without making them look bad. This isn’t a case where everyone needs to agree. It’s not even about defending the pride of a dead man, it’s a case of where one has to wonder what Tarantino’s sudden contempt was.
The movie is about as accurate here as the recent Nuremberg film is about Douglas Kelly which also goes beyond creative liberties.
“There can certainly be multiple perspectives about a figure without making them look bad.”
But that’s the thing… I personally don’t think QT portrayed him badly at all. Or maybe I just hang out with too many assholes? 😂
But I’m good with being the minority in thinking this. =)
I aint’ no QT fan, but at least he was selective enough not to inlcude Bruce’s drug habits. Everyone on this site is still painting Bruce as a perfect human. Have some balls!!!
Drug habits? Who has never had drug habits?
Looking forward to this, but if it’s set in 1977 no chance of a Bruce Lee cameo unless it’s a flashback or dream sequence.
There’s a third option – the ‘No Retreat, No Surrender’ approach!
They can always do the other Bruces.
SPOILERS…
SPOILERS…
SPOILERS…
Considering Tate survived in the first film, anything is possible!
Ideally it would be great if there was a flashback sequence where Bruce and Cliff have a proper rematch that’s longer and more competitive.
What would really work story-wise is if Bruce won, and Cliff was feeling shitty after that, and then in the present day, he has to take on more dangerous opponents and “get his thunder back.”
Quentin should stop writing and directing.
He could be a great Frankenstein’s creature without needing any make-up. Just two nails and voilà!
In a perfect world Tony Scott would have done nothing but direct a new pulpy QT script every 2-3 years, while Tarantino kept the more ambitious, highbrow stuff for himself.
Make for Netflix make me doubt the quality. I haven’t seen anything on Netflix that I like with the exception of Extraction.
Agree with you there. Extraction and its sequel are the only ones I’ve seen that were solid.
Hoping for the best with this one!
Maybe The Night Comes For Us doesn’t count since it wasn’t made by Netflix, but I would list that, Havoc, Kate, The Killer ‘23, The Gray Man, The Adam Project, Day Shift, Beverly Hills Cop 4, The Old Guard 1&2, Carter, The Irishman, Tick Tick Boom, and a ton of others.
I don’t know where this idea comes from that being a Netflix film automatically makes something inferior.
its cos Netflix’s CEO admitted that their “content” is designed to be “consumed” while a phone is in your hand. This type of movie is one level below switch your brain off and enjoy
Well, I don’t have a phone in my hand when I watch Tick Tick Boom or The Shadow Strays, and if anybody from Netflix knew, I doubt they’d be telling me that I’m watching incorrectly.
I don’t subscribe to the bullshit notion that modern movies are for people on their phones all the time. So much so, that I’m a dictator with my friends when we watch movies and I tell them “put your fucking phone away and pay attention.” (Jokingly)
I forgot about The Shadow Strays. That was really good, too.
In this instalment, Booth is going to knock Mohammad Ali out with a single punch.
In the third film, he will travel back in time to defeat Miyamoto Musashi in a sword fight, cutting his head clean off.
In the final chapter, he will ascend to heaven and throw God (played by Tarantino, of course) down the stairway.
You and Tarantino need to collaborate. =)
+1!
… that guy!