It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
If I may add my own question… where would you guys put Julia Roberts? Dave clearly left her off so we could have some fun deciding where she belongs.
wait, no, I’m an idiot. Sorry Dave.
Did i miss something or where was Clint Eastwood? And Tom Hanks should be much much higher. If you don’t count The Ladykillers, the only non $100-million Hanks starrer in the last dozen years was The Terminal, which was really a Christmas movie out of place in the summer of ’04, small wonder it got drowned out by the Spiderman/Potter/Shrek/Day After Tomorrow hype. And for all the talk of his ‘tough’ ’04, don’t forget that Polar Express (which was largely sold on his name) DID chug along to nearly $170 million.
You’re right… Eastwood should have been noted on the “Retired – Directing” list.
And equivocate all you like on Hanks, the big run – which should be legend for a long time – ended with Cast Away, which was perhaps the most audacious show of power of all. With due repect to the man they tried to sell Polar Express with, the film died with that pitch and revived based on the quality of the IMAX experience.
That top 5 list really depresses me. The more time goes by, the lest interested I am in “stars” and the more interested I become in actors/actresses who I feel I can rely on to choose interesting material, elevate material that might not be as good otherwise, and take chances.
I think it’s telling how many times Dave says that certain actors don’t seem interested in pursuing big stardom. I’m far more likely to go out of my way to see a movie with Johnny Depp, Jodie Foster, or Clive Owen (or to include people not on the list: Viggo Mortensen, Eric Bana, Frances McDormand) than I am to seek out anyone on the top 5 list, with the possible exception of Tom Hanks.
A few that I thought should have been on the 5 mil list. They oly succeed in their genres, but Dave included a lot of names based on their small cornered markets.
Jet Li has never had a huge hit as the lead in the US, but has never opened less than 10 mil, including the under marketed Unleashed.
Michael Douglas in a thriller.
Twisted doesn’t help my argument here, but Ashley Judd in a thriller mostly guarantees a good opening. The female version of Douglas.
Jackie Chan needs an American buddy to open big, but it can be really big.
I agree with Dave on that Dr. Wally. I’m a huge Hanks fan, but none of his three starring films in ’04 really did much for me. Granted, The Ladykillers was never expected to be a huge hit (in the triple digits), though The Terminal was. I hated the Polar Express 2-D, never saw 3-D.
I’m guessing after that year, Hanks wanted to jump on board a sure fire box office hit (Code), but if you see the other stuff he’s got developing…nothing looks grossly commercial. I’m guessing he wants out of the summer competition game, and wants to enter his senior years with smaller movies. Smart move.
I’ve always had a soft spot for Hanks, he’s the one big movie star I imagine would be nice to have lunch with.
I cannot believe I would see the day that a top 10 ‘money’ actors list would be made and Harrison Ford would not be on it.
Number 40…and I cannot really disagree.
I wonder if he really can get back up that list or if he is just past his due date?
I am even starting to wonder if Indy IV would bring in the kids and teens the way Star Wars did or if it would be seen more in the vein of an ‘old school’ adult film.
After Da Vinci clocks in world wide grosses I think Hanks will move up.
I am also very curious as to what kind of projects that the three Dave left off (Gibson, Roberts and Schwarzenegger), will pursue when/if they return.
I think Roberts return is guaranteed, the other two less so in the near future.
RE: Hanks — what about Road to Perdition in 2002? Yes, it did “only” $100 million but can you think of another lead actor who could help a movie like that (arty, bleak, not particularly suspenseful) to triple-place millions?? Catch Me If You Can, the same year, did even better (granted, with Leo and Spielberg along, but still, would you argue that Hanks was *not* a major part of the marketing angle for that movie?).
I mean, seriously, below Ferrell (and I love Ferrell), and Keanu Reeves?? I’d put Hanks in the top ten easily. Maybe not top three or five, as he would’ve been a few years ago, but shouldn’t it take more than a pair of starring roles taking in over $70 mil and over $170 mil to get him out of the top ten proper?
I’d also put Depp a little lower. I mean, it’s important to note that he helped a bunch of movies that wouldn’t necessarily be automatic $50+ grossers (Once Upon a Time in Mexico, Secret Window, Finding Neverland) get there, definitely. But that’s a top-20 justification, not a top-6.
I adore McAdams, but vaulting to #15, ahead of Stiller or Witherspoon, seems like a bit much.
Pitt should be lower than #3, even with his international popularity. He’s definitely risen recently, but it’s not hard for me to picture him taking a quick tumble (for as many good reasons as bad; he simply doesn’t seem to do more than one or two movie-star-ish projects in a row).
Maybe I missed it, but did you include Mike Myers? Definitely a “in a comedy only” type of star (a la Stiller, Sandler, etc.), and takes long breaks, but I don’t think he should be counted out entirely. I mean, The Cat in the Hat was not a well-liked movie by anyone, and he helped that crap to $100 mil.
I’d put the top ten thusly:
1. Will Smith
2. Tom Cruise
3. Tom Hanks
4. Jim Carrey
5. Adam Sandler
6. Denzel Washington
7. Ben Stiller
8. Eddie Murphy
9. Reese Witherspoon (though Just Like Heaven’s underperformance shocked me)
10. Russell Crowe
… with Jodie Foster not far behind.
… and Julia Roberts, much as I dislike her, would be there if she had anything in the pipeline.
McAdams as the biggest female star in Hollywood? She has big potential but she’s only been The Lead in exactly ONE movie. Family Stone and The Notebook were ensembles and she was second (or third) banana in Wedding Crashers and Mean Girls.
I mean, Dave, if you’re going to put here up this high, where on the list are Ginnifer Goodwin and Ellen Pompeo, to name two other Poland-crushes.
^ I agree. Poland’s McAdams obsession continues to baffle. Hey, since you’re making stuff up, why don’t you include Ginnifer Goodwin and Amy Adams and complete the Poland-wank-trifecta.
I also don’t think Crowe should be as high. Master and Commander opened under $30M, and Cinderella Man opened under $20M. And let’s face it, while Cruise was the “Crazy Celebrity” of last year, Crowe really got under the skin. I have had it up to here with this guy. The only other guy that can seem to stand him is Ridley Scott.
McAdams is clearly not the biggest female star, and VERY clearly not a bigger star than Witherspoon, but Poland’s characterization of McAdams as “a huge value play” is certainly defensible. At this point, it would probably make more sense to hire her in a lot of situations than several of the actresses who make a lot more than she does.
Yeah, I agree with Dave (and Haggai) in that McAdams is most certainly a great value and way on the rise. She just isn’t quite there yet. If the whole point of the list was naming people who should be paid in the $10 mil range, wouldn’t that suddenly make her not such a terrific bargain?
^ Absolutely. She’s a potential star of the future. But a $15M payday at this point in her career? Nope.
What about Mike Myers? The man can open a picture.
He can open an Austin Powers sequel…that’s about it. The Cat and the Hat barely made it to $100M. I think the guy is extremely overrated.
If Poland is going to laud Eddie Murphy for his voice work in Shrek then he should do the same for Myers.
Yeah, but it opened…
With all do respect, I don’t think voice overs should count.
They shouldn’t count for as much, but ever since Robin Williams was cast in Aladdin, the stars have been integral parts of the publicity machine. Otherwise they wouldn’t spend the money on them.
I agree — you can count voiceovers the same way you can count any number of other less concrete, less star-driven projects. War of the Worlds isn’t as “pure” an expression of star power as Hitch, because War of the Worlds had aliens/effects/Spielberg/hype helping it along. But the Tom Cruise factor is still there. Same with Clooney/Pitt/Damon in the Ocean’s films; none of them carried it (just as Murphy and Myers weren’t selling the Shrek movies with face time), but they certainly contribute a lot.
If I were doing it mathematically, I’d suggest weighting a voiceover leads and ensemble/supporting parts (in live-action) less — but still counting them.
Come on David, where is Jack Black. He is sooooo much bigger then a lot of people on your list. You can
$193,136,719 Madagascar
$279,167,575 Meet the Fockers
$114,324,072 Dodgeball
$12,181,484 Envy
$88,200,225 Starsky and Hutch
$87,856,565 Along Came Polly
Those are the last six movies Ben Stiller starred in. He obviously should be higher on the list, and well above McAdams. While I understand the logic, she is just far too high.
Voiceover counts…especially when it is the comedic timing and/or distinct voice that is bringing people to the theater. Eddie Murphy’s Donkey definitely qualifies. Kiefer Sutherland as a lion in The Wild…not so much.
Scene 1. Int. McAdams House. Day.
Rachel McAdams is in a bikini sitting at her computer and browsing her fave blogger.
Rachel
oh my god.. Dave has rated me #1 in the world!
Rachel’s Mom
who? that fijian wrestler guy?
Rachel
yes yes yes.. him. oh mom i wanna play with
his coconuts and rub him down with oil. he
loves me… he really loves me.
Rachel’s Mom
just make sure you wear a rubber – i heard he
likes it bareback brokeback style
If voiceover counts, move Julia Roberts back up on the list, because they are going to be promoting the HELL out of her titular voiceover for the upcoming “Charlotte’s Web.”
Agree that McAdams is a value play but must also agree that she is ranked wayyyy too high. She hasn’t yet built name recognition yet…to many in her target audience, she is not yet Rachel McAdams — just “the girl from The Notebook.”
And I was shocked to see Jodie Foster so low. Jodie Foster in a thriller or suspenseful drama is absolutely guaranteed money. Clive Owen, who I love, did not open Inside Man. That was all Denzel and Jodie. If you’re not going to hold Spanglish against Sandler (which was very recent and perhaps should be held against him, at least in part), then why drudge up Anna and the King to tar Foster?
I’d have switched Denzel Washington into the top ten, in favour of someone like Johnny Depp. While I am a big Depp fan, I think that Washington is more consistent in his openings. Depp has been very fortunate lately…let’s see how he opens a quirkier old school type film before saying he’s worth $10 mill.
I seem to remember the same people sayin, “Rachel McAdams who?” last year at about this time.
Just because she’s been in three movies in the last year does not make her the biggest female star in Hollywood today. Come on.
P.S. Jesse asks the right question in McAdams.
That’s circular logic. Putting her at #15 in the list means that she’s worth $10m, but by your own reasoning (she’s a bargain right now because nobody’s paying her that much) she is in fact not up there yet.
I think your list is pretty on the money, though McAdams is nowhere near the star/draw Jolie is.
The best role McAdams has ever played was on Slings and Arrows. Which demonstrated, at least to me, that she could easily take over that “JULIA ROBERTS” terrority. If she wanted to, but as EW asked earlier this year; WHERE’S HER NEXT MOVIE? If she picks the right role, then she should be worth her spot. Right now; she’s has the wrong spot on that list. Stiller has been a goof for years. Hating on something he did at the Oscar, does not put a solid earner below a woman that has a great role on the first season of a Canadian TV show and has been the lead in all of ONE FILM..
That aside, I remember when Dave loved Scarlett Jo the way he now loves McAdams. He was this ‘.’ close to getting me into the theatre to see Eight Legged Freaks. I wonder who Dave will get all “RA RA!” for next? I am possibly thinking it could be Ellen Paige. At least Ellen Pompeo is the LEAD of the THIRD BIGGEST TV Show in the US. So, Dave, might have a track record with picking the talent.
I’m just sayin’… ain’t nobody scrambling to get Rachel McAdams in Ocean’s 13.
They are clamouring to get Ellen Barkin in O13. Why? Soderbergh is a really big fan of SWITCH.
(Jimmy Smits)
I notice that the newest TV ads for Lucky Number Slevin are pushing Bruce Willis hard, and I think there’s more Morgan Freeman than Josh Hartnett, too.
“though McAdams is nowhere near the star/draw Jolie is.”
Star? No. But I would bet a handful of cash that if you ask a girl between the ages of 13-21 whether they’d rather see Rachel McAdams latest movie of Angelina Jolie’s (outside of something like Mr & Mrs Smith) that Rachel would win. What’s Angelina done lately that was any good? Broken up Brad and Jennifer’s marriage? Big achievment there.
Dave’s description of Orlando Bloom as McConaughey circa A Time To Kill is so correct.
Drew Barrymore needs to find a role like the one in “Donnie Darko” but one that is actually a feature role. Her two best performances of the last decade were two cameos. “Scream” and “Donnie Darko” and only on of her romcoms has been any good (“Never Been Kissed”) although I never did see “Ever After” – apparently it’s quite popular.
Jamie Foxx has been swallowed by his own ego and is now actually just a replicant of the original Jamie Foxx with an ego that’s double.
Amanda Bynes can open stuff because she’s generally likable. Plus, despite it being absolutely rediculous, She’s the Man was fun light entertainment.
I must say Sandra Bullock is going through that transition period. Small role in Crash, she plays Harper Lee in “Infamous” (the other Truman Capote movie). Looks like she’s finally ready to become an actress.
The reason Queen Latifah doesn’t have an internation following is because she makes movies that seem highly targetted towards african-american audiences (nothing wrong with that) which don’t necessarily work anywhere else. As i said the other day, most of these movies aimed at that target don’t even get released theatrically here and a DVD release usually occurs about a year after the US release.
Looking forward to seeing Lindsay shoot up the list after her quadruple serious movies. Prairie Home Companion (with THAT cast), Bobby (with THAT cast), Georgie Rule (with Shirley MacLaine and Jane Fonda!) and Chapter 27.
How depressing seeing Steve Martin up there. I wish it was for good stuff, but alas…
Johnny I agree shouldn’t that high. How many of his movies recently have been $100mil grossers?
Other than that the list fine (this entry was way longer than I anticipated, sorry)
“Kevin Costner – Hooks up with Ashton Kutcher in The Guardian in September.”
the next Brokeback? Inter-generational, too!
The only way that Lohan shoots up that list, and becomes a FULL-FLEDGE star; gain weight, bring back the red hair, THEN take on more challenging roles. While the current incarnation maybe more suitable for the Nick Awards. For her to truly get out of the ghetto of her own making. She has to take it back. If not, then, she at least can entertain teenagers for a few more years.
Rachal McAdams inclusion as the highest place female draw is indefensible. We all know David has an understandable crush on this girl (I think Jeffrey Wells does as well, so at least they can finally agree on something.LOL!). But she is not Julia Roberts as of yet, no matter how much you’re willing it to be the case.
When McAdams starts opening movies being sold on her name, then you can put her in the higher echelons. But as yet, she hasn’t appeared in a single film sold as a”Rachel McAdams” movie. The Notebook was a surprise hit based on word of mouth, not the “starpower” of it’s unknown leads. The Family Stone was an ensemble job (that Sarah “Failure to Launch” Jessica Parker probably had a bigger factor in it’s success than McAdams). And Red Eye was a horror programmer released at the right time. It would have done the same buisness with Sarah Michelle Gellar as the scream queen.
Basically, McAdams have been in some movies that have done well, but it’s never been in movies sold on her presence. That’s what makes a star. McAdams may well get there, but she isn’t yet. And putting all this underserved credit on her back is only going put pressure on her to actually carry a movie based on her starpower, before she may actually be ready. Right now, Lindsay Lohan is a bigger, genuine draw than McAdams.
Also, Denzel Washington should probably be top 10. Why? Because he’s probably the purest example of genuine starpower at work to day. Here’s a few interesting facts about Denzel;
1 He’s one of the only long term (ie been around for at least 15 years), A-list actors never to have done a sequel. Denzel don’t need no franchises. He IS the franchise.
2 Denzel has never made a movie with a production budget exceeding 100 million dollars (ie, he’s never made a film that was “supposed” to be and had to be a blockbuster). His films, for the most part, do not rely on special effects or technical wizardry, or dumb over-the-top action (ie BAD BOYS, CON AIR). His movies are primarily serious and dramatic in nature. And they’re usually R-rated, which limits a younger audience. MAN ON FIRE, which I assumed to be a straight up action film based on the trailer, was a film where all the characters spent the first hour talking. Not that many action scenes at all.
Denzel movies are sold almost entirely on Denzel, not on the hype around the movie. His movies look good, but they rarely look like must-see “blockbusters” in size or scope. If he made films with 150 million dollars worth of special effects or scenery, then he’d have more 100 million domestic grossers, simple as that. Do you think PIRATES OF THE CARIBEAN, GLADIATOR and TROY did blocbuster buisness simply because people just wanted to look at Johnny Depp, Russell Crowe and Brad Pitt. It was certainly part of the reason, but those were “event” movies, full of epic shots and special effects heavy. Denzel has never made a movie like that. If Denzel made dumber (ie Nic Cage or Will Smith vehicles) or more effects heavy films, or films that didn’t need him to sell it (ie THE DAY AFTER TOMMOROW, WAR OF THE WORLDS) his domestic grosses would be higher. For the type of movies he makes, and what they tend to cost, his films domestic grosses usually tend to be as good as you could expect, for all but a handful of stars. Maybe Cruise could get his movies higher, but very few other stars could. A “been there, seen that” low-tech bank robbery movie lke INSIDE MAN is gonna make at least 90 million domestic. That’s impressive.
As it is, he’s kind of similar to Michael Douglas in his heyday, who made serious dramas and thrillers that did consistently well, did not have exhorbitant production budgets and always opened well. Douglas had very few 100 million dollar domestic grossers either.
As an aside, Denzel was hilarious in INSIDE MAN, and he made everyone in my theatre laugh with his comic timing and line reading. He may well be ready to open a comedy now.
“The reason Queen Latifah doesn’t have an internation following is because she makes movies that seem highly targetted towards african-american audiences (nothing wrong with that) which don’t necessarily work anywhere else. As i said the other day, most of these movies aimed at that target don’t even get released theatrically here and a DVD release usually occurs about a year after the US release.”
Camel, I actually came across an odd thing along those lines back in December, when I was on a Lufthansa flight to Israel…they were showing the Cedric the Entertainer movie of The Honeymooners, dubbed into German, and subtitled in Hebrew!
I read somewhere that the reports of Witherspoon getting $29 million to star in a horror movie were wrong…anyone know anything about that?
While I think DP is conflating different things by putting McAdams that high on his list, I would submit that if you’re making a thriller/horror movie with the choice of either Witherspoon at $29 large or McAdams at (I would guess) about one-fifth that much, it’d be a no-brainer to hire McAdams.
I know he’s easy to forget, considering he works only every few years (and seemingly never in movies without “Rush” and “Hour” in the titles), but Chris Tucker would still be a HUGE draw in an action-comedy.
I think he’s still worth $20 million EASY. Any project that was in his wheelhouse would be a smash hit.
The question mark for Lohan is actually “Just My Luck.” Can she open a romantic comedy, not a kids movie, against competition and with no one else of note involved? If she can get “Just My Luck” to a 50M+ level, she’s unquestionably a big player.
Kamikaze Camel, what is “Georgie Rule”? I’ve never heard of it.
I will say I went to see Red Eye entirely because it starred Rachel McAdams. But I doubt most of America is like me in that regard.
The person who said a 14-20 year old girl would be more excited by McAdams than Angelina Jolie was right on the money. She’s HUGE in that teen demographic.
Should she be the highest-ranking actress right now? No. But she will be soon.
MAN ON FIRE’S budget, Tilby, was north of $100M. I know because I worked at that production company at the time. They told the press $85M, but trust me, it was higher.
BUT, your overall argument I think hits the mark exactly. While Denzel has certainly done genre movies, he’s never done a sequel, and he appeals to every demographic.
Hanks did Toy Story 2, and that’s his only sequel. Costner’s never done one either. I think they should get points for that.
“although I never did see “Ever After” – apparently it’s quite popular.”
I love fun, post-modern “period” movies like Ever After and Knight’s Tale — those two both manage to use the conventions of the time that work, throw away the rest, and get the audience along for the ride anyway. Ever After was a retelling of Cinderella that was empowering for young women; she relies on herself, instead the prince. And KT was a funny rags-to-riches story that had just enough sentiment to give it some heart. (And both had great, great casts.)
I’ll also second the love (and respect) for Denzel. He’s one of those actors who lifts the material every single time… he’s turned a lot of movies into something better than they had any right to be, like Crimson Tide and Man on Fire, although I could name a bunch more. I like some of his less popular films a lot, too, like The Mighty Quinn and Fallen, which nobody saw, but I thought it was a great supernatural thriller. He is just eminently watchable in almost any kind of role — of all things, it was Much Ado About Nothing that made me a real fan of his.
(Okay, I admit nobody could have saved Virtuosity, but we all make mistakes.)
Hey now. Russell Crowe’s ass tried really, really hard in that movie.
Fallen and Virtuosity…yeesh. And dont’ forget Ricochet. I actually paid to see Out of Time.
He’s great in The Hurricane, but that movie blows.
How has no one mentioned Bob De Niro? He opened “Hide and Seek” to $22M, to say nothing of Meet the Fockers. Clearly he’s not top-10 material but certainly deserves to be above, say, Ashton Kutcher.
Agree with all points made about Denzel and McAdams. And Hanks is too low on your list. How much would Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp have opened “The Terminal” at?
Terminal was helped alot by Spielberg.
I still think Myers deserved some consideration as he’s had three franchises (Shrek, Austin Powers, Wayne’s World) that rode a lot on his appeal. Perhaps not Shrek as much, but he’s still the lead character using his signature faux Scottish accent.
If I remember right, the Terminal ads really didn’t push Spielberg much at all. Even on the posters (and DVD cover), you can barely make his name out. I think Hanks moved that movie about as far as it could go.
I agree about the poster. It was basically a variation on the Forrest Gump one, which I think was smart.
But I also think that anytime Spielberg’s name comes into the picture as director, then it is hard to avoid press, reviews, and word of mouth using that as a prominent talking point. Just as WoW wasn’t entirely a Tom Cruise film, Terminal shared some Spielberg slipstream (even if it wasn’t adventure/sci-fi).
Spielberg’s name only sells on “Spielbergian” movies: tentpole action/fantasy. There’s no evidence that audiences will consistantly pay for anything that on first glace does not follow the Spielberg model.
The Spielberg name doesn’t guarantee a hit, but it certainly makes people more interested than they would be otherwise. A.I. grossed $79m with no stars and middling audience reaction purely based on Spielberg’s name. Amistad, The Terminal, and Munich all surely did better than they would have if they had been directed by just about any other director out there.
Melquiades that was me. Seriously, i doubt any 15-year-old would choose Angelina over Rachel. Age plays a part obviously, but even then. How many wanna see Beyond Borders?
“gain weight, bring back the red hair, THEN take on more challenging roles.”
er, she has gained the weight back, she has brought the red hair back. Just so ya know. (I’m sorry, but I’m an unashamed Lindsay devotee)
James Leer, Georgie Rule is set to stars Lohan, Shirley MacLaine, Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman and is about a child abuse victim. Apparently it’s not depressing though! Read more about it http://www.style.com/w/feat_story/040506/full_page.html
Denzel don’t make sequels cause none of his movies are sequelable. Nor have that many lately actually been that good. Inside Man not withstanding. (i just read the last bunch of posts and people have basically said what i just said. oh well)
Spielberg movies are the sorts that people pay attention to critics on. Unless it’s War of the Worlds. God knows why.
And whoever bought up Wayne’s World as a Mike Meyers example… that was waaay too long ago to count towards anything. if we wanna use Wayne’s World then Kevin Costner and Cher are the biggest stars around.
WOTW got a 72% from Rottentomatoes. Critics and audience were in basic accord.
Lindsay Lohan may have gained back the red hair and the weight, but she still looks unhealthy and substance-addled.
Garry Marshall? Urk.
KamikazeCamelV2.0;
You’re right that none of Denzel’s movies are especially sequable. But that’s almost the point I was trying to make. He does not seem to actively search for “franchisable” films, which 90% of stars do. It’s no coincidence that Johnny Depp’s stock went sky high the minute he found a franchisable movie. (Having a DIE HARD, OCEANS, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN, LETHAL WEAPON or a BOURNE as back-up, can get a star through some lean box office periods, y’know). Almost everything Denzel does has a stand-alone quality to it. It’s admirable, and it also suggests that he’s secure enough in his stardom, that he knows he doesn’t need to go looking for a franchise. You can’t say that of many stars.
Denzel’s last film, THE MANCHRURIAN CANIDATE, was loved by critics (81% RT, 76 on metacritic). The main reason it gets crapped on by some “fans”, is because it dared to remake a sacred cow of a movie. As remakes go, it was a very good one, imho. ANTWONE FISHER was also a classy and acclaimed directorial debut from Washington. So he’s made at least 4 critically acclaimed movies this decade so far (counting TRAINING DAY and INSIDE MAN), which is a solid recent track record. Yeah, he’s hit and miss in terms of the quality of his movies, but no more than most stars. Audiences trust him enough, that he’s become critic-proof. Critics can shit on the likes of JOHN Q or MAN ON FIRE, but Denzel will still pack ’em in opening weekend.
That’s why for me, Denzel may be the best example of real starpower working today. He doesn’t draw audiences because he makes filmic masterpieces. He doesn’t draw audiences because he’s in a Tarantino/Speilberg/Shamylan movie. He doesn’t draw audiences because he makes stupid, loud movies designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. He doesn’t draw audiences by making the most expensive and effects laden film possible. He certainly doesn’t draw audiences because he makes sequels or franchises.
People watch Denzel because they like his acting. More importantly, they trust his acting. Even if the movie around him sucks, there is a general sense that Denzel will give you your money’s worth with a strong performance (MAN ON FIRE is a good example. A blistering, near-Oscar calibre performance that was unfortunately in the middle of a Tony Scott epileptic fit). It’s the sort of thing that made actors like Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracey and Jimmy Stewart perrenials.
The BASIC ACCORD of the audience should be the DVD sales. Which, WOTW, did okay, but not as hot as the other LARGE FILMS from last year. For a film that I hate, how it did not win an Oscar for any of those effects remains a rather annoying mystery. ILM, once again, received the FOREMAN treatment.
Camel, I do not hate Lohan, but she needs to revert back to the Summer of 04. That Lohan would have conquered the world already. My opinion, but I am not her people. Hopefully, her people, are helping her out.
Dave, good on you for admitting the McAdams thing was an indulgence. And you’re right – it does make for a more interesting conversation, especially about where she might be headed.
I hope one of her next projects is a light romantic comedy; between The Notebook and Red Eye and the Vanity Fair thing, she’s presented herself as someone who needs to lighten up a little and flash that huge smile some more.
You really need to see more current pictures of Lindsay if you think she still looks substance addled. And not the bad type of photos that would make anyone look like they’re shot five lines of cocaine and smoked a field of pot. You can find any number of them on When Celebrities Attack.
The think about none of Denzel’s movies being sequelable (did i make that word up?) wasn’t an insult or anything, just an observation. I’m not particularly Denzel’s biggest fan (so sad that he won the Oscar for Training Day and not something that was actually, ya know, good), but he IS a good actor. But Dave was also taking international draw into account and I don’t really think he’s that big outside of America.