(Ended up unexpectedly taking the day off yesterday. Not that I’m complaining.)
• Anne Thompson talks to “Secretariat” star Diane Lane. [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Mila Kunis on dropping to a bony 95 pounds for “Black Swan.” [E! Online]
• Dave Karger, meanwhile, wonders if the actress can score an Oscar nod alongside co-star Natalie Portman. [Inside Movies]
The occasion of Russell Crowe saddling up to a film version of “The Equalizer” (ironically announced the same day studios were supposedly clamoring for original material), is an excuse for nothing more than an embed of the opening credits sequence from the 1980s series. I always thought it was badass.
We’ve already pointed out the long, destructive development process of “Robin Hood” and how it yielded a Frankenstein assemblage due to multiple rewrites. So it’s a full nine graphs into this Vulture “exclusive” before you get to the actual exclusive material: the film apparently almost splintered Crowe and Scott’s relationship forever. Writes Claude Brodesser-Akner:
With a Screen Actors Guild strike looming, and the release date blown, real tension began to mount between Crowe and Scott. Their familiar bonhomie had been replaced by frosty, terse exchanges. “There was a feeling of ‘Get it right already!” recalls one insider. “They were always speaking, but barely.” Said another source who watched the relationship deteriorate, “There were a lot of forces who all believed they were trying to do the right thing.”
Then again, there’s not a lot of meat there, so who knows how serious the situation really was. Anyway, more grist for the mill.
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott helped steal $37.1 million from the poor on behalf of the rich as “Robin Hood” enters the chart in second place this week. The humorless duo courted the older adult audience, and in that respect, this is a solid enough debut. Not quite up to the snuff of “Gladiator,” but a better start than the $22.7 million summer 2005 launch of Crowe’s “Cinderella Man,” a film which is often cited as the one that killed big budget adult dramas being released in the heart of summer.
Where the film goes from here is up to the word of mouth which, from what I can gather, is mediocre. It’ll need a healthy push to reach $100 million, but I think we’re looking at another “Public Enemies” situation where the film stalls out just under the mark around $95 million. But before you bring Universal some hankies to cry in, you can expect that number to be almost tripled in overseas territories. Crowe lives to leave another interview!
So that means that “Iron Man 2” is the number one film again this week. Good job Iron Man. The comic book superhero dropped a perilous 59% and continues to do the absolute bare minimum to avoid being called a disappointment. These grosses are perfunctory and little else and it’s sad that we’ve reached a point that a possible $350 million finish is blasé. Again, the film has already topped the $200 million mark overseas as well so this is a very profitable venture for Marvel. The third film is already in pre-production and Martin Lawrence has entered negotiations to replace Don Cheadle.
You might recall last year’s prestigious honor for showing one’s ass across the radio waves went to Billy Bob Thornton. This year’s award goes, in a landslide, to Russell Crowe:
*All historical figures cited are adjusted to today’s dollars.
Fresh off a tepid debut at Cannes, Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe have unleashed their fifth collaboration upon the world. Forget Scorsese and DiCaprio, these guys are taking actor-director bromance to another level. Together, they’ve given us Oscar winning hits (“Gladiator”), non-Oscar winning hits (“American Gangster”) and non-Oscar winning non-hits (“A Good Year” and “Body of Lies”). Which category will “Robin Hood” fall under?
The one comparison everybody can’t stop making is to “Gladiator” so let’s start there. The sword and sandals epic also launched in May, of 2000, and slashed up a $51.4 million debut. That was at the very beginning of May with no other summer movies out in competition it should be noted. Both director and star have become much more prolific and popular since then so maybe we should assume that “Robin Hood” could do a little better.
Not so fast! Medieval/historical epics have had a torrid last few years at the box office. Scott’s own “Kingdom of Heaven” was supposed to kick off the 2006 summer season with a bang but only managed a $24.4 million debut and $58.8 million finish. Oliver Stone gave it the old college try with “Alexander” and found $17.5 million to start en route to a $43.9 million total. Granted, people hated that thing.
I spent a good long time trying to think of some glib, pithy way to link the pair of titles served up on the first day of the Cannes Film Festival, but must admit defeat — they have no common points whatsoever, apart from the fact that they both, like, feature French people. In lieu of such an intro, then: two films screened today. This is what they were.
“ROBIN HOOD” (**1/2)
It’s a fairly rote critical bitchslap to say that the closing credits are the best part of a movie, but that’s quite literally the case in Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood.” I say this not in snark, but in praise: it’s a genuinely remarkable credit sequence, animated in rich-hued, painterly style, presumably by the same artists behind the Scott Free company logo (a personal favorite). It’s rather a shame it couldn’t be stuck at the front of the film instead. Perhaps Scott thought its color palette would show up the actual film’s symphony of camouflage tones.
Okay, that’s 100 words spent on the credits. If you think I’m stalling before delivering a damning verdict on the film, you’d be wrong, but I can’t find much of substance to say about it either. For the second summer blockbuster in a row, I must part ways with my esteemed editor in finding “Robin Hood” a sturdy if resolutely unfashionable entertainment, one crafted and performed by A-grade talent with more commitment than passion – but enough of the former to keep things on the rails.
Anne tips us off to the first wave of “Robin Hood” reviews, which were meant to be held until Wednesday, given the Cannes screening and all. Alas, no one seems to follow embargoes anymore, so the trades, as usual, spilled right after Empire did the same across the pond.
For my part, I’ve been trying to write a review of the film ever since I saw it last week. But I never seem to get past a graph or so when I come back to it, because — truth be told — the film just never seems to get out of the gate and is quite forgettable.
It’s a prequel to the legend we all know, which is novel and interesting in and of itself, and certainly an attractive enough premise. After all, the legend is just that, a legend, fit with all the convolution and, in some interpretations, anachronisms that come with the territory. What better way to strip down and streamline the iconic figure than via a prequel as epic as this, one that plants the seeds for the classic strokes to come?
I tend to avoid reporting on projects at the pre-production stage, since they so often don’t pan out — if they were ever more than rumors to begin with. But it’s for that very reason that I bring this to your attention: if I mention it, that’ll hopefully put the hex on it ever happening. From the Guardian:
Russell Crowe looks set to take a leading role in A Star Is Born, a remake of the classic Hollywood melodrama about a fading, drunken superstar who finds himself eclipsed by a younger model. The former Gladiator star is reportedly in talks to appear alongside Beyoncé in the Warner Bros production.
Not horrific enough for you? Well, Nick Cassavetes (“My Sister’s Keeper,” “John Q,” “The Notebook”) is reportedly in the director’s chair. Uh, bring it on.
2005 was the year of Heath Ledger’s beautiful, moving performance in “Brokeback Mountain,” which I saw for the first time in Toronto. It instantly became the talk of the festival, and the film became the one to beat for the Academy Award.
Ledger was astonishing as the taciturn cowboy who is more surprised than anybody when his soulmate turns out to be another cowboy, portrayed superbly by Jake Gyllenhall. If there is a more deeply felt moment in film history than Ledger gently adjusting Gyllenhall’s shirt at the end of the film, his eyes filled with tears, I don’t know what it is. That’s loss, that is absolute heartbreak, that is one of the greatest acting performances of the decade.
Phillip Seymour Hoffman would win the Oscar for his transformation into “Capote” and he’s very good, but just not in the same league as Ledger. I wondered from time to time if “Infamous” had been released earlier if Toby Jones might have won the Oscar instead of Hoffman. Each becomes Capote in a very different manner, and side by side it is difficult to choose the stronger portrayal. Certainly I prefer Hoffman’s as it is darker, and for me more realistic, but there can be no denying Jones.
There is little doubt in my mind I am going to take some heat this week, so let’s kick it off right away with my belief that Sean Penn deserved his Best Actor Oscar for “Mystic River,” a performance of overwhelming ferocity and staggering emotional power.
Yes, I too loved Bill Murray in “Lost in Translation,” and would have loved to have seen him win, but he didn’t, and frankly he lost to a stronger performance (in my opinion). I know it is a cliche to say the nomination is the reward, but I would hope that Murray would be happy with that.
But there were so many great male performances in 2003!
Robert Duvall was superb in “Open Range” as the wily old rancher who ends up in a gunfight for his life with his friend, played by the also fantastic Kevin Costner, by his side. Tom Cruise gave a great performance in “The Last Samurai” for director Edward Zwick, while Russell Crowe was again brilliant in “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World,” adding to his string of stunning performances.
In one of the weakest years in memory, not just for performances but for great films, 2001 saw Denzel Washington and Halle Berry knock “two birds out with one stone,” as the former declared on Oscar night, as two African Americans won the top acting prizes for the first time ever. And it was difficult to argue with either.
Washington was superb in “Training Day,” clearly loving his role as crooked cop Alonzo, walking the line without ever going over the top, blowing everyone off the screen. In many ways it was a make-up award for his having lost for “Malcolm X” in 1992 to Al Pacino’s ranting work in “Scent of a Woman” and perhaps, though lesser so, for his loss for “The Hurricane.”
Berry gave a raw, sexually charged performance in “Monster’s Ball,” one of such searing truth and rage you could never look away from the screen. Robert Duvall called her performance the finest by an American actress he had ever seen and was not the least bit surprised when she won the Oscar for Best Actress.
My question remains: Should Denzel Washington have won over the non-nominated performances of Gene Hackman in “The Royal Tanebaums” or the vastly under-appreciated Jack Nicholson in “The Pledge,” one of his finest recent performances? Don’t think so.
There was a lot of love shown to Tom Wilkinson for his heartbreaking work in “In the Bedroom” as well as Russell Crowe (again) for his performance in “A Beautiful Mind,” which eventually won the Best Picture Oscar. I was very surprised that Sean Penn was nominated for his performance in “I Am Sam” because though I consider Penn one of the greatest actors in the history of the cinema, his work in that film represents one of the very few times I could “see” him acting.
Michael Douglas was robbed.
The already Oscar-christened actor gave a career-best performance in 2000 in Curtis Hanson’s “Wonder Boys,” but he got no love from the Academy. Worse, his performance was easily among the five best of the year and won the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Best Actor prize.
That having been said, I don’t think Douglas actually deserved the Oscar in 2000. That honor belonged to Tom Hanks in “Cast Away” for a performance that was nothing less than astounding. For two and a half hours Hanks commands the screeen, moving into silent film territory for a stretch, the actor using strictly his body and face for the performance. Anyone who has ever, and I mean ever, doubted his range needs to take a hard look at this film.
The five nominees for Best Actor in 2000 were Hanks, Russell Crowe for “Gladiator,” Ed Harris in “Pollock,” Geoffrey Rush in “Quills” and Javier Bardem in “Before Night Falls.” For me, Douglas was the most glaring omission, followed by George Clooney’s Gable-esque work in “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” which I think remains one of the actor’s very best pieces of work.
1999 was a strange year. And it’s hard to believe a full decade has slipped past since. There were some great award-winning performances, to be sure, but there seemed to be just as many not nominated that certainly should have been.
Ten years later, I remain stunned that Reese Witherspoon was not nominated for her brilliant work in “Election” as a pathologically ambitious, grasping social climber student doing anything it takes to head up the student council in Alexander Payne’s astute and black comedy.
Witherspoon won the National Society of Film Critics award for Best Actress, besting eventual Oscar, LAFCA and NYFCC champ Hilary Swank in “Boys Don’t Cry.” What made Witherspoon’s work so incredible was that we all must have known a Tracy Flick during our high school days, and the actress created such an accurate depiction.
Swank was a most deserving winner for her superb performance, winning over nominees, Annette Bening in “American Beauty,” Janet McTeer in “Tumbleweeds,” Julianne Moore in “The End of the Affiar” and Meryl Streep in “Music of the Heart” (perhaps the perennial Oscar favorite’s least accomplished nominated performance).
Bening’s performance was brilliant, she won the Screen Actors Guild award for it, and though there seemed to be a swell of support for her as Oscar night approached, there was no denying Swank for her career-altering work.
Director Michael Mann has been trying to get an adaptation of “For Whom the Bell Tolls” off the ground for a while now. As far back as October 2006 (when I interviewed Mann for an Eric Roth profile), the film was mere days from being announced.
I’m not a sleuth like the Anne Thompsons or the Sharon Waxmans, so I don’t know the specifics of why it hasn’t happened. I imagine it’s budgeting concerns on some levely.
Anyway, it’s been a shame not to see things come together on that front, but I’m glad Mann has found a nice outlet to get his Spanish Civil War groove on, and perhaps a better opportunity overall, with Columbia’s acquisition of “Waiting for Robert Capa,” a biography of the war photographer and Mann’s next gig.
It seems almost too easy to cast Leonardo DiCaprio here, no? (The actor’s Appian Way offices are in the same Santa Monica complex as Mann’s Forward Pass, and Mann, of course, produced and was once set to direct “The Aviator.”) Maybe he’ll go a different route (though DiCaprio would be a no-brainer for “Bell”‘s Robert Jordan).
As we sit in the flurry of festival season, with the even more flurry-ful (sorry, I’m tired) awards season upcoming, everyone’s eyes are pointed forward, as we impatiently await the supposedly Oscar-tailored collection of movies peppered across the next 3 or 4 months.
At this point, it’s easy to forget that the year is actually 12 months long, and that the warmer seasons offer their (admittedly, usually smaller) share of work worthy of celebration.
So I’m grateful to friend, reader and generally superb film writer Nick Davis for assembling this handy (though very idiosyncratic) alterna-Oscar ballot of the best work released in 2009 thus far.
With the forthcoming release of Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies” (review) dominating — quite impressively, I might add — the publicity circuit this week, all eyes are on Johnny Depp. An Ulmer Scale X factor for this character study posing as a summer blockbuster, Depp’s performance is sure to draw champions and detractors alike for its delicate, internalized particulars. But of one thing we can be certain: the work is of a piece with Mann’s typically detailed approach to character.
Mann’s collaborative process with his actors typically involves something called “character acquisition,” a tightly-conceived regimen, of sorts, that gives his films’ characters the authentic touch that makes his work so novel. Many times these details won’t even be discussed in the overall narrative, but their background impact on the performer is unmistakable. Take, for instance, the photos of the childhood home of Tom Cruise’s hitman Vincent in “Collateral” that Mann brought to the actor’s attention, merely by way of more fully developing the character’s clearly complicated formidable years.
The result of this hard work has been a slew of captivating, at times career-best performances from some of the most accomplished actors working today. A Michael Mann production represents the opportunity to go deeper with a performance and perhaps even learn more about the craft. Will Smith has frequently discussed his collaboration with Mann as the most rewarding experience of his professional life. And, as Javier Bardem once told me, “When Michael Mann invites you to his party, you don’t turn him down.”
So with that, a collective representing the best performances to come from Mann’s 10 feature films to date seemed the best way into this week’s installment of The Lists. It’s a very personal list, of course, as yours would be. There are three performances from one film, none from two, and a pair of unconventional supporting turns to shake things up. After going back through the director’s work last week in preparation for the list, even I was surprised my #1 choice was left standing, but regardless of order, see this as a way to compliment a true actor’s director.
When Russell Crowe was on Letterman the other night, it totally escaped me that the filming of Rilsey Scott’s “Robin Hood” was responsible for his new “Gladiator” hair do. Now we get our first official look at Crowe in character, courtesy of USA Today:
And here’s Crowe pitching “State of Play” in the aforementioned Letterman segment. There’s a quasi-interesting/humorous Helen Mirren story thrown in: