Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news
Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244442] Fr, 31 März 2006 05:17
FTseng2749  
Well, good news and bad news with "The Matador," Pierce's first movie
since he was officially replaced as 007 by Daniel Craig. Bad news is
that it's been in theaters for 3 months now and has grossed only $12.6
million domestically and only a tad more worldwide, so by most
definitions, the movie is pretty much a flop. Good news is that its
box office gross was made despite The Matador being released in only
900 theaters, and the movie cost only $12.5 million to make, so at
least the movie made up its production budget, unlike much bigger bombs
like "The Island" or "Stealth," which were $100 million-plus
productions released in 3000-plus theaters but could only make $30
million-plus domestically. Plus the movie got great reviews and a
Golden Globe nomination for Pierce, so I doubt Pierce is unhappy with
the results; he'll get more interesting non-Bond roles out of this.

To compare apples to apples, Woody Allen's "Match Point," a $15 million
production that premiered just two days before The Matador and was
released in only 500 theaters, was able to make more than $23 million
domestically and over $76 million worldwide, much better than The
Matador did, with all else being equal.

I hope Pierce gets a "second wind" and at some point have a hit movie
in a non-Bond role. The two he's had as a leading man (Dante's Peak,
The Thomas Crown Affair), occurred when he was still the current James
Bond, which no doubt helped his cause. His sequel to TTCA, "The
Topkapi affair" has a good chance, but after that, he may have reinvent
himself, especially now that his popularity has waned a bit in the wake
of being "fired" from the 007 role. It would be nice if his post-007
career went the way of Sean Connery (Indiana Jones 3, The Hunt for Red
October, The Rock) rather than Timothy Dalton (The Rocketeer, Looney
Tunes: Back in Action).

-Frank
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244449 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 11:09
phil.gerrard1  
FTseng2749 wrote:

> Plus the movie got great reviews and a
> Golden Globe nomination for Pierce, so I doubt Pierce is unhappy with
> the results; he'll get more interesting non-Bond roles out of this.

I think that's the real object of the exercise for Brosnan. He's
gained a lot of credibility and acclaim by doing the movie, and good
for him. In fact, I think he's better than the interesting-but-flawed
script deserves and that his performance pretty much carries the film.
No lightweight could do that.

> I hope Pierce gets a "second wind" and at some point have a hit movie
> in a non-Bond role.

It'd be good, but since it's reasonable to assume he doesn't have to
worry too much about the state of his finances these days, I hope he'll
chase roles that'll give him some measure of satisfaction first and
foremost.

> It would be nice if his post-007
> career went the way of Sean Connery (Indiana Jones 3, The Hunt for Red
> October, The Rock) rather than Timothy Dalton (The Rocketeer, Looney
> Tunes: Back in Action).

Dalton, like Lazenby, has had to struggle with the perception that he
somehow 'failed' as Bond, and that can't have helped his career much.
Also, note the dates of the three Connery films you mention. Even he
had some trouble getting out from under Bond's shadow and establishing
himself as a major star in his own right. Somebody - apologies for
forgetting who - pointed out that John Boorman was able to cast Connery
in 'Zardoz' simply because Connery wasn't getting any other offers at
the time, and his career during the '70s was a patchy affair to say the
least.

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244452 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 14:41
neolib007  
FTseng2749 wrote:
> It would be nice if his post-007
> career went the way of Sean Connery (Indiana Jones 3, The Hunt for Red
> October, The Rock) rather than Timothy Dalton (The Rocketeer, Looney
> Tunes: Back in Action).

The Rocketeer is a very good (if not great) movie. Pierce would
be lucky to get a film of this quality in the near future.

I think Pierce is best suited for the small screen. He seems to be
more charismatic on TV than in feature films.
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244453 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 14:48
Rich Handley  
neolib007 [at] yahoo.com said:
>FTseng2749 wrote:
>> It would be nice if his post-007
>> career went the way of Sean Connery (Indiana Jones 3, The Hunt for Red
>> October, The Rock) rather than Timothy Dalton (The Rocketeer, Looney
>> Tunes: Back in Action).
> The Rocketeer is a very good (if not great) movie. Pierce would
> be lucky to get a film of this quality in the near future.

Yeah, but it's no Looney Toons: Back in Action.
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244454 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 15:08
phil.gerrard1  
Rich wrote:

> Yeah, but it's no Looney Toons: Back in Action.

Can I just admit that I kind of liked that movie? Sub-par for Joe
Dante, admittedly, but still some fun stuff in there, and any film with
a Roger Corman cameo is OK by me.

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244455 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 15:18
phil.gerrard1  
neolib007 [at] yahoo.com wrote:

> The Rocketeer is a very good (if not great) movie.

Nice ideas, piss-poor execution IMHO. It's not anywhere near as much
*fun* as it should be.

> Pierce would
> be lucky to get a film of this quality in the near future.

To be honest, I think he already has. For all my reservations about
it, I think 'The Matador' is still superior to most, if not all of
Dalton's post-Bond work. I'm not denigrating Dalton here, because I'm
a huge fan of his, it's just that them's the breaks - unless you
produce as well as act, you take what's on offer to you, and sometimes
that might not be top-drawer stuff. (viz 'Cuba', 'Meteor', 'The Next
Man', 'Ransom', etc...)

> I think Pierce is best suited for the small screen. He seems to be
> more charismatic on TV than in feature films.

Ironically, Dalton's best filmed work since LTK, IMO, has been on TV
('Framed').

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244460 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 16:56
Eric Grayson  
In article <1143808904.010355.3560 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<neolib007 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

> FTseng2749 wrote:
> > It would be nice if his post-007
> > career went the way of Sean Connery (Indiana Jones 3, The Hunt for Red
> > October, The Rock) rather than Timothy Dalton (The Rocketeer, Looney
> > Tunes: Back in Action).
>
> The Rocketeer is a very good (if not great) movie. Pierce would
> be lucky to get a film of this quality in the near future.
>
> I think Pierce is best suited for the small screen. He seems to be
> more charismatic on TV than in feature films.
>
Not only is the Rocketeer a fun film, but it shows Dalton's versatility
as an actor.

I also loved Looney Tunes; I may be the only one, but it's so full of
delightful in-jokes that I was laughing all through it. Ignore the
plot and concentrate on the set decoration and other stuff. Any movie
that features a Jerry Lewis poster on every streetcorner in France gets
a big thumbs-up in my book.

Connery did a lot of stuff in the 70s (no one has mentioned Meteor yet)
that was really crappy in comparison to the few big features that
Dalton has done.

Eric
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244468 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 17:46
phil.gerrard1  
Eric wrote:

> Connery did a lot of stuff in the 70s (no one has mentioned Meteor yet)

Hey, if you were going to killfile me you could have told me :-)

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244470 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 19:40
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1143810512.853485.75870 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Rich wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but it's no Looney Toons: Back in Action.
>
> Can I just admit that I kind of liked that movie? Sub-par for Joe
> Dante, admittedly, but still some fun stuff in there, and any film with
> a Roger Corman cameo is OK by me.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>

Personally, I think the Looney Tunes in their prime were the greatest
cartoons ever made, and I'm always a sucker to see them, even though they
are nothing like it used to be. I found it amusing, and the cameos were
pretty good.
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244471 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 19:45
Will Traynor  
"Eric Grayson" <filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:310320060958029406%filmspamawayeric [at] earthlink.net...
> In article <1143808904.010355.3560 [at] t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> <neolib007 [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> FTseng2749 wrote:
>> > It would be nice if his post-007
>> > career went the way of Sean Connery (Indiana Jones 3, The Hunt for Red
>> > October, The Rock) rather than Timothy Dalton (The Rocketeer, Looney
>> > Tunes: Back in Action).
>>
>> The Rocketeer is a very good (if not great) movie. Pierce would
>> be lucky to get a film of this quality in the near future.
>>
>> I think Pierce is best suited for the small screen. He seems to be
>> more charismatic on TV than in feature films.
>>
> Not only is the Rocketeer a fun film, but it shows Dalton's versatility
> as an actor.
>
> I also loved Looney Tunes; I may be the only one, but it's so full of
> delightful in-jokes that I was laughing all through it. Ignore the
> plot and concentrate on the set decoration and other stuff. Any movie
> that features a Jerry Lewis poster on every streetcorner in France gets
> a big thumbs-up in my book.
>
> Connery did a lot of stuff in the 70s (no one has mentioned Meteor yet)
> that was really crappy in comparison to the few big features that
> Dalton has done.
>
> Eric

Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is just a
mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he doing. I was
watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very much. The movie was
a bit contrived but Connery is always interesting to watch. I'm still trying
to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and Peter Boyle. Love that movie.
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244472 ] Fr, 31 März 2006 23:01
Mac  
Will wrote:

> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is
> just a mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he
> doing. I was watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very
> much. The movie was a bit contrived but Connery is always interesting
> to watch. I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and
> Peter Boyle. Love that movie.

http://www.dvdpacific.com/item.asp?ID=671755
--
--
--Mac

"I'd like a report of all the incidents in the last six
months. I'd like it soon, or I just might kick your nasty
arse all over this room. That's a marshal joke."
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244474 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 00:40
Will Traynor  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:495jmsFmt5i6U1 [at] individual.net...
> Will wrote:
>
>> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is
>> just a mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he
>> doing. I was watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very
>> much. The movie was a bit contrived but Connery is always interesting
>> to watch. I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and
>> Peter Boyle. Love that movie.
>
> http://www.dvdpacific.com/item.asp?ID=671755
> --
> --
> --Mac
>
> "I'd like a report of all the incidents in the last six
> months. I'd like it soon, or I just might kick your nasty
> arse all over this room. That's a marshal joke."
>
>
>

Ask and ye shall receive ;-) Thanks, Mac !!!
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244475 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 01:54
phil.gerrard1  
Will wrote:

> Personally, I think the Looney Tunes in their prime were the greatest
> cartoons ever made

Well, it was a great era all round - much of MGM's 'Tom and Jerry' and
Tex Avery stuff of the same period ('40s through mid-'50s) was just as
good IMHO. But, yeah, the Warners stuff was superb.

> I found it amusing, and the cameos were
> pretty good.

That's a fair assessment. Not anywhere near the standard of the real
Looney Tunes stuff, or for that matter Dante's best work, but an
entertaining enough way to spend an hour and a half.

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244476 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 01:58
phil.gerrard1  
Will, Mac:

>> I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and
>> Peter Boyle. Love that movie.
>
> http://www.dvdpacific.com/item.asp?ID=671755

Thanks - must get hold of it myself. I've always wanted to see what
that spectacular Steven Berkoff wig-out looks like in slow motion :-)

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244478 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 02:11
phil.gerrard1  
Will wrote:

> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure.

It has to be said - and I'm surprised that I've only just thought of it
now - that to call Connery's 'Man Who Would Be King' co-star's career a
'mixed bag' would be putting it mildly. Very few movie stars, or movie
actors, or actors generally, manage to maintain anything like a
straightforward rise through the ranks: for most, it's up and down all
the time. Neither Dalton or Brosnan has achieved the heights of movie
success that, say, Burt Reynolds or Michael Caine achieved in their day
- but neither Dalton nor Brosnan has yet sunk to the depths that those
guys did when they were forced to slum it IMHO.

Another fuckin' 'everything's relative' homily courtesy of -

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244481 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 03:14
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1143850262.650274.250830 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure.
>
> It has to be said - and I'm surprised that I've only just thought of it
> now - that to call Connery's 'Man Who Would Be King' co-star's career a
> 'mixed bag' would be putting it mildly. Very few movie stars, or movie
> actors, or actors generally, manage to maintain anything like a
> straightforward rise through the ranks: for most, it's up and down all
> the time. Neither Dalton or Brosnan has achieved the heights of movie
> success that, say, Burt Reynolds or Michael Caine achieved in their day
> - but neither Dalton nor Brosnan has yet sunk to the depths that those
> guys did when they were forced to slum it IMHO.
>
> Another fuckin' 'everything's relative' homily courtesy of -
>
> Phil
>

Michael Caine has continued to make some good movies, however. The Quiet
American and Batman Begins, The Cider House Rules come to mind off the top
of my head. Caine has had quite a career. OTOH, Jaws - The Revenge......lol
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244495 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 17:34
Tom Zielinski  
"Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:VdWdnXenZbJW97DZRVn-qQ [at] comcast.com...

> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is just
> a mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he doing. I
> was watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very much. The
> movie was a bit contrived but Connery is always interesting to watch.


Ack! "Contrived" is kind! A very good cast, but what a stupid plot. Ed
Harris...I really can't understand some of his role choices. A really good
actor, but he does do his share of shite.

Agreed though, about Connery.


> I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and Peter Boyle.
> Love that movie.


Paul Baack turned me on to that movie many years ago. I liked it then, and
will have to put it in my NetFlix queue. Mr. Baack also lent to me last
week "Dark City", not hopeful I would like it. He's a big fan of
sci-fi/fantasy. Me, not so much. Paul made some droll comment that I
"probably wouldn't understand it." Feh to him, I loved the film! And as he
noted, Roger Ebert's commentary track is superb.

Was Rufus Sewell really considered for Bond? Good actor, but I really can't
see him in the role.



Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that there is no ocean...there is nothing beyond the city...the only place
home exists...is in your head...
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244501 ] Sa, 01 April 2006 19:38
Will Traynor  
"Tom Zielinski" <rtomz [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
news:G92dnYj9yb4HALPZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d [at] comcast.com...
>
> "Will" <willt65 [at] comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:VdWdnXenZbJW97DZRVn-qQ [at] comcast.com...
>
>> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is
>> just a mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he
>> doing. I was watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very
>> much. The movie was a bit contrived but Connery is always interesting to
>> watch.
>
>
> Ack! "Contrived" is kind! A very good cast, but what a stupid plot. Ed
> Harris...I really can't understand some of his role choices. A really
> good actor, but he does do his share of shite.
>

I did like his performance in this movie, but I can see how anyone would
think it was over the top ;-) I agree, Harris has made some odd choices for
roles. I think he is a bit weird in real life, anyway, lol

> Agreed though, about Connery.
>
>
>> I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and Peter Boyle.
>> Love that movie.
>
>
> Paul Baack turned me on to that movie many years ago. I liked it then,
> and will have to put it in my NetFlix queue. Mr. Baack also lent to me
> last week "Dark City", not hopeful I would like it. He's a big fan of
> sci-fi/fantasy. Me, not so much. Paul made some droll comment that I
> "probably wouldn't understand it." Feh to him, I loved the film! And as
> he noted, Roger Ebert's commentary track is superb.
>

For me, Outland is more of a cult classic because not many people seem to
remember it. And I always enjoy Peter Boyle, too. I'll have to check out
Dark City.


> Was Rufus Sewell really considered for Bond? Good actor, but I really
> can't see him in the role.
>
>
>
> Tom Zielinski
> "...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay
> this
> particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands'
> three
> ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
> delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
> that there is no ocean...there is nothing beyond the city...the only place
> home exists...is in your head...
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244506 ] So, 02 April 2006 01:14
phil.gerrard1  
Tom wrote:

> Ed
> Harris...I really can't understand some of his role choices. A really good
> actor, but he does do his share of shite.

I suspect it's the tradeoff that character actors in his position often
have to make. You want to do 'Pollock', you have to do a few 'Just
Cause's and the like. It's the situation that Scorsese got himself
into for a long time from the '80s to the mid-'90s - one for the
studio, one for me - although more recently the line has blurred to the
point where one's no longer quite sure which is which. I'm not
convinced that's been a great development.

> Was Rufus Sewell really considered for Bond? Good actor, but I really can't
> see him in the role.

FWIW, he did some very good readings of the Bond novels for audio
books. I can't quite see him as Bond either, but I hope eventually he
finds a role which will make him more of a household name than he is:
he's a good enough actor to deserve it.

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244514 ] So, 02 April 2006 01:52
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1143933291.779018.24490 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom wrote:
>
>> Ed
>> Harris...I really can't understand some of his role choices. A really
>> good
>> actor, but he does do his share of shite.
>
> I suspect it's the tradeoff that character actors in his position often
> have to make. You want to do 'Pollock', you have to do a few 'Just
> Cause's and the like. It's the situation that Scorsese got himself
> into for a long time from the '80s to the mid-'90s - one for the
> studio, one for me - although more recently the line has blurred to the
> point where one's no longer quite sure which is which. I'm not
> convinced that's been a great development.
>

I'm just curious, but what movies did Scorcese do in the 80s and mid 90s for
the studio? The only ones I can think of is The Color Of Money or possibly
The Age of Innocence. It's certainly nothing he got himself into "a long
time" as you say. The rest were films either he wanted to make or DeNiro
pushed him to make. Many of Scorsese's movies involve NY as a setting, and
Hollywood, which is a bit high on itself, pooh poohs Marty because he never
really sold himself out to Hollywood. It's one of the reasons why he has
never won an Academy Award, which is a large black mark on Hollywood.

>> Was Rufus Sewell really considered for Bond? Good actor, but I really
>> can't
>> see him in the role.
>
> FWIW, he did some very good readings of the Bond novels for audio
> books. I can't quite see him as Bond either, but I hope eventually he
> finds a role which will make him more of a household name than he is:
> he's a good enough actor to deserve it.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244516 ] So, 02 April 2006 02:48
phil.gerrard1  
Will wrote:

> I'm just curious, but what movies did Scorcese do in the 80s and mid 90s for
> the studio? The only ones I can think of is The Color Of Money or possibly
> The Age of Innocence. It's certainly nothing he got himself into "a long
> time" as you say. The rest were films either he wanted to make or DeNiro
> pushed him to make. Many of Scorsese's movies involve NY as a setting, and
> Hollywood, which is a bit high on itself, pooh poohs Marty because he never
> really sold himself out to Hollywood. It's one of the reasons why he has
> never won an Academy Award, which is a large black mark on Hollywood.

As I understand it, 'The Age of Innocence' was very much a Scorsese pet
project, sold to him by Jay Cocks' enthusiasm for the idea, and not
something he was pushed into making. 'Cape Fear', 'The Color of
Money', and in fact even 'After Hours' (in part an attempt, after 'The
King of Comedy' to prove that he could make a low-budget movie and turn
a profit) were the ones which were made to appease the studios and
convince them that he wasn't money down the drain. IIRC - and I admit
I can't at present find the evidence to support this, although I know
I've seen it - 'Casino' was initally a studio-led project ('Goodfellas
II' if you like) and Scorsese did the film partly on the understanding
that he'd get finance for 'Kundun'.

Incidentally, Faber's 'Scorsese on Scorsese' makes it explicit that his
deal with Universal was made on the basis that he would make more
commercial films for them.

As regards 'Gangs of New York', his battles with Miramax are
well-documented, and there's little doubt that the film you see on
screen isn't exactly what Marty originally envisioned. (I'm very
suspicious of some of the gossip in Peter Biskind's books, but based on
what I've read elsewhere I think there may be some truth in what he
wrote about 'Gangs' in 'Down and Dirty Pictures'.) Since then, there's
been 'The Aviator', which started as a project Michael Mann abandoned,
and the upcoming remake of 'Infernal Affairs'.

IMHO he's not sold out, not for a second. However, he's having to
negotiate and perhaps compromise in ways that he didn't have to in the
1970s, and while I hate to say it - because to me he is a hero - I
don't think the films are as good as a result.

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244520 ] So, 02 April 2006 05:02
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1143938891.083503.60190 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> I'm just curious, but what movies did Scorcese do in the 80s and mid 90s
>> for
>> the studio? The only ones I can think of is The Color Of Money or
>> possibly
>> The Age of Innocence. It's certainly nothing he got himself into "a long
>> time" as you say. The rest were films either he wanted to make or DeNiro
>> pushed him to make. Many of Scorsese's movies involve NY as a setting,
>> and
>> Hollywood, which is a bit high on itself, pooh poohs Marty because he
>> never
>> really sold himself out to Hollywood. It's one of the reasons why he has
>> never won an Academy Award, which is a large black mark on Hollywood.
>
> As I understand it, 'The Age of Innocence' was very much a Scorsese pet
> project, sold to him by Jay Cocks' enthusiasm for the idea, and not
> something he was pushed into making. 'Cape Fear', 'The Color of
> Money', and in fact even 'After Hours' (in part an attempt, after 'The
> King of Comedy' to prove that he could make a low-budget movie and turn
> a profit) were the ones which were made to appease the studios and
> convince them that he wasn't money down the drain. IIRC - and I admit
> I can't at present find the evidence to support this, although I know
> I've seen it - 'Casino' was initally a studio-led project ('Goodfellas
> II' if you like) and Scorsese did the film partly on the understanding
> that he'd get finance for 'Kundun'.
>

Actually, I've read just the opposite about Cape Fear. In a DeNiro biography
authored by Andy Dougan, called "Untouchable," it was stated that DeNiro
pushed Scorsese into doing that movie. The same about the King of Comedy,
another DeNiro pushed project. Kundun was a Scorsese pet project, but I've
read differing opinions about Casino, so I'm not sure that was a studio-led
project either. I know Marty is good friends with Nick Pileggi, who co-wrote
the screenplay for Goodfellas. Casino was authored by Pileggi also, as I'm
sure you know.

> Incidentally, Faber's 'Scorsese on Scorsese' makes it explicit that his
> deal with Universal was made on the basis that he would make more
> commercial films for them.
>
> As regards 'Gangs of New York', his battles with Miramax are
> well-documented, and there's little doubt that the film you see on
> screen isn't exactly what Marty originally envisioned. (I'm very
> suspicious of some of the gossip in Peter Biskind's books, but based on
> what I've read elsewhere I think there may be some truth in what he
> wrote about 'Gangs' in 'Down and Dirty Pictures'.) Since then, there's
> been 'The Aviator', which started as a project Michael Mann abandoned,
> and the upcoming remake of 'Infernal Affairs'.
>

I realize Gangs and The Aviator were attempts to become a bit more
mainstream with Hollywood, but they were not made in the 80s or mid 90s.

> IMHO he's not sold out, not for a second. However, he's having to
> negotiate and perhaps compromise in ways that he didn't have to in the
> 1970s, and while I hate to say it - because to me he is a hero - I
> don't think the films are as good as a result.
>
> Best
>
> Phil
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244530 ] So, 02 April 2006 07:22
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1143938891.083503.60190 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> I'm just curious, but what movies did Scorcese do in the 80s and mid 90s
>> for
>> the studio? The only ones I can think of is The Color Of Money or
>> possibly
>> The Age of Innocence. It's certainly nothing he got himself into "a long
>> time" as you say. The rest were films either he wanted to make or DeNiro
>> pushed him to make. Many of Scorsese's movies involve NY as a setting,
>> and
>> Hollywood, which is a bit high on itself, pooh poohs Marty because he
>> never
>> really sold himself out to Hollywood. It's one of the reasons why he has
>> never won an Academy Award, which is a large black mark on Hollywood.
>
> As I understand it, 'The Age of Innocence' was very much a Scorsese pet
> project, sold to him by Jay Cocks' enthusiasm for the idea, and not
> something he was pushed into making. 'Cape Fear', 'The Color of
> Money', and in fact even 'After Hours' (in part an attempt, after 'The
> King of Comedy' to prove that he could make a low-budget movie and turn
> a profit) were the ones which were made to appease the studios and
> convince them that he wasn't money down the drain. IIRC - and I admit
> I can't at present find the evidence to support this, although I know
> I've seen it - 'Casino' was initally a studio-led project ('Goodfellas
> II' if you like) and Scorsese did the film partly on the understanding
> that he'd get finance for 'Kundun'.
>
> Incidentally, Faber's 'Scorsese on Scorsese' makes it explicit that his
> deal with Universal was made on the basis that he would make more
> commercial films for them.
>
> As regards 'Gangs of New York', his battles with Miramax are
> well-documented, and there's little doubt that the film you see on
> screen isn't exactly what Marty originally envisioned. (I'm very
> suspicious of some of the gossip in Peter Biskind's books, but based on
> what I've read elsewhere I think there may be some truth in what he
> wrote about 'Gangs' in 'Down and Dirty Pictures'.) Since then, there's
> been 'The Aviator', which started as a project Michael Mann abandoned,
> and the upcoming remake of 'Infernal Affairs'.
>
> IMHO he's not sold out, not for a second. However, he's having to
> negotiate and perhaps compromise in ways that he didn't have to in the
> 1970s, and while I hate to say it - because to me he is a hero - I
> don't think the films are as good as a result.
>

I think he's compromising now, that's for sure. I'm just not so sure he did
any real compromising until the late 90s. IMHO, one of the mistakes Scorsese
has made recently is the casting in his films. Let's face it, Leonardo
DiCaprio is no DeNiro. Latching on to DiCaprio has been a tactical mistake
and one made to become more mainstream with Hollywood. Sure, he's made some
good casting decisions in some of his recent films (Daniel Day-Lewis, Cate
Blanchett) but he's made some duds too (Cameron Diaz). And now he's got Leo
in his latest film, too. Not for one minute did I believe Leo was Howard
Hughes, lol. You look at the performances he got out of DeNiro, Keitel,
Cathy Moriarty, Pesci, Burstyn, Liza Minnelli, Frank Vincent, Sharon Stone,
Ray Liotta, Jerry Lewis, Sandra Bernhard, Juliette Lewis, etc., and there is
no comparison with the acting I've seen in his recent films. The only one
who comes to mind lately is Daniel Day-Lewis in Gangs. If Marty does get an
Oscar someday, I just hope it's given for work that was among his best.
IMHO, the last great movie he did was Casino.

> Best
>
> Phil
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244981 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 01:35
phil.gerrard1  
Will wrote:

> Actually, I've read just the opposite about Cape Fear. In a DeNiro biography
> authored by Andy Dougan, called "Untouchable," it was stated that DeNiro
> pushed Scorsese into doing that movie.

Heh. 'Scorsese on Scorsese' explicitly names 'Cape Fear' as a film
that Marty did as a result of his promise to Universal to make more
commercial films in return for their backing of 'Last Temptation'.

Of course, the two aren't at all mutually exclusive. Universal want a
commercial picture, De Niro wants to do 'Cape Fear', and Scorsese sees
the film as an answer to both demands. It's one for Bob *and* one for
the studio.

('The best shine you ever tasted' :-) )

What's the Dougan biography of De Niro like? I've only read John
Baxter's, which I thought was poor indeed. To be fair, I suspect De
Niro would be a difficult subject for any biographer.

> Kundun was a Scorsese pet project, but I've
> read differing opinions about Casino, so I'm not sure that was a studio-led
> project either.

I wish I could find the piece I was thinking of which suggested that
'Casino' started one way and ended up the other. IIRC, the film had
middling reviews - by Scorsese's standards - on its release, but in the
last few years has gained a better reputation.

It was rather a shock, on re-watching Michael Mann's 'Crime Story' for
the first time since its first run last year, to discover why so many
of the scenes in 'Casino' had felt so naggingly familiar...

> I think he's compromising now, that's for sure. I'm just not so sure he did
> any real compromising until the late 90s.

That's the impression I got about 'The Color of Money' and 'Cape Fear',
at least, and I may just be looking for evidence to support that
feeling.

> IMHO, one of the mistakes Scorsese
> has made recently is the casting in his films. Let's face it, Leonardo
> DiCaprio is no DeNiro.

IMHO DiCaprio isn't a bad actor but he needs *time* - like Polanski
said about Johnny Depp, he still hasn't really played a fully-formed
adult on screen. They both still come off as boys, not men, and
indulging them with juvenile lead / Peter-Pan-ish / wantonly eccentric
roles doesn't really do them any favours in the long run.

> And now he's got Leo
> in his latest film, too. Not for one minute did I believe Leo was Howard
> Hughes, lol.

I'm less worried about DiCaprio as Howard Hughes than I am about the
idea of his playing one of the leads in a remake of the magnificent
'Infernal Affairs'. I really hope he and Scorsese will surprise me by
pulling it off.

> You look at the performances he got out of DeNiro, Keitel,
> Cathy Moriarty, Pesci, Burstyn, Liza Minnelli, Frank Vincent, Sharon Stone,
> Ray Liotta, Jerry Lewis, Sandra Bernhard, Juliette Lewis, etc., and there is
> no comparison with the acting I've seen in his recent films.

I'm straining to think of a good Pesci performance outside a Scorsese
film. Scorsese is the only guy who took him beyond schtick IMHO.

> If Marty does get an
> Oscar someday, I just hope it's given for work that was among his best.
> IMHO, the last great movie he did was Casino.

I felt that 'Bringing out the Dead' had some promise, and I can't quite
figure out why it didn't fully work for me. I think that modern, urban
environment feeds his muse better than the more epic canvases he's been
working on lately.

Best

Phil
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244983 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 03:09
Will Traynor  
"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1144020951.813411.105620 [at] u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> Will wrote:
>
>> Actually, I've read just the opposite about Cape Fear. In a DeNiro
>> biography
>> authored by Andy Dougan, called "Untouchable," it was stated that DeNiro
>> pushed Scorsese into doing that movie.
>
> Heh. 'Scorsese on Scorsese' explicitly names 'Cape Fear' as a film
> that Marty did as a result of his promise to Universal to make more
> commercial films in return for their backing of 'Last Temptation'.
>
> Of course, the two aren't at all mutually exclusive. Universal want a
> commercial picture, De Niro wants to do 'Cape Fear', and Scorsese sees
> the film as an answer to both demands. It's one for Bob *and* one for
> the studio.
>
> ('The best shine you ever tasted' :-) )
>
> What's the Dougan biography of De Niro like? I've only read John
> Baxter's, which I thought was poor indeed. To be fair, I suspect De
> Niro would be a difficult subject for any biographer.
>

It's not bad, but it's a bit of a hatchet job against DeNiro. It mentions a
lot about his drug use and friendship with Belushi. And it does talk about
his past relationships with women through the years, and hints about his
situation with Shelley Winters, which I found to be quite interesting. But I
enjoyed the tidbits about why he took certain roles, how he prepared for
them, etc. It's not a great book, but it held my attention.

>> Kundun was a Scorsese pet project, but I've
>> read differing opinions about Casino, so I'm not sure that was a
>> studio-led
>> project either.
>
> I wish I could find the piece I was thinking of which suggested that
> 'Casino' started one way and ended up the other. IIRC, the film had
> middling reviews - by Scorsese's standards - on its release, but in the
> last few years has gained a better reputation.
>

Yes, the one problem with the film is that it followed Goodfellas. If Casino
had come out first it would be more highly regarded. It has a similar style
to Goodfellas, as we all know, but I find it to be a completely different
story altogether. And I thought the acting and directing were first-rate.
It's a bit long in parts but I put it just a slight notch below Goodfellas.
It's a great double-feature !!!

> It was rather a shock, on re-watching Michael Mann's 'Crime Story' for
> the first time since its first run last year, to discover why so many
> of the scenes in 'Casino' had felt so naggingly familiar...
>
>> I think he's compromising now, that's for sure. I'm just not so sure he
>> did
>> any real compromising until the late 90s.
>
> That's the impression I got about 'The Color of Money' and 'Cape Fear',
> at least, and I may just be looking for evidence to support that
> feeling.
>

I agree with you on The Color of Money, especially casting Tom Cruise. That
has Hollywood written all over it.

>> IMHO, one of the mistakes Scorsese
>> has made recently is the casting in his films. Let's face it, Leonardo
>> DiCaprio is no DeNiro.
>
> IMHO DiCaprio isn't a bad actor but he needs *time* - like Polanski
> said about Johnny Depp, he still hasn't really played a fully-formed
> adult on screen. They both still come off as boys, not men, and
> indulging them with juvenile lead / Peter-Pan-ish / wantonly eccentric
> roles doesn't really do them any favours in the long run.
>

Well, Leo is a "adult" and he's had plenty of time to brush up on his acting
chops. His best work was his earliest work, IMHO - Gilbert Grape, This Boy's
Life stand out for me. He's a good actor but he's not my cup of tea, that's
for sure. As you mentioned, I cannot get past the Peter Pan stuff.

>> And now he's got Leo
>> in his latest film, too. Not for one minute did I believe Leo was Howard
>> Hughes, lol.
>
> I'm less worried about DiCaprio as Howard Hughes than I am about the
> idea of his playing one of the leads in a remake of the magnificent
> 'Infernal Affairs'. I really hope he and Scorsese will surprise me by
> pulling it off.
>
>> You look at the performances he got out of DeNiro, Keitel,
>> Cathy Moriarty, Pesci, Burstyn, Liza Minnelli, Frank Vincent, Sharon
>> Stone,
>> Ray Liotta, Jerry Lewis, Sandra Bernhard, Juliette Lewis, etc., and there
>> is
>> no comparison with the acting I've seen in his recent films.
>
> I'm straining to think of a good Pesci performance outside a Scorsese
> film. Scorsese is the only guy who took him beyond schtick IMHO.
>

I liked Pesci in Easy Money and My Cousin Vinny, both comedies. But he has
not done anything serious that was worthwhile outside of the Scorsese films,
IMHO.


>> If Marty does get an
>> Oscar someday, I just hope it's given for work that was among his best.
>> IMHO, the last great movie he did was Casino.
>
> I felt that 'Bringing out the Dead' had some promise, and I can't quite
> figure out why it didn't fully work for me. I think that modern, urban
> environment feeds his muse better than the more epic canvases he's been
> working on lately.
>

It was a strange film, and you really don't hear much about it, either. It
seems to get overlooked. I agree with you about Scorsese, he works better
doing his own thing, rather than picking up these Hollywood epics, like
Gangs or Aviator. In the case of those two movies, I really think he was
trying to appease Hollywood and bring home an Oscar. If he can't win with
Taxi Driver, Raging Bull or Goodfellas, what else can he do? lol


> Best
>
> Phil
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244989 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 11:44
Mac  
Will wrote:

> I liked Pesci in Easy Money and My Cousin Vinny, both comedies. But
> he has not done anything serious that was worthwhile outside of the
> Scorsese films, IMHO.

Sergio Leone's magnificent ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.
--
--
--Mac
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244990 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 11:44
Mac  
Will wrote:

> Actually, I've read just the opposite about Cape Fear. In a DeNiro
> biography authored by Andy Dougan, called "Untouchable," it was
> stated that DeNiro pushed Scorsese into doing that movie.

CAPE FEAR was initially a project for Steven Spielberg, with
Thomas Kenneally's "Schindler's Ark" intended for Martin
Scorsese. The two directors later exchanged projects, with
Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment handling CAPE FEAR.
--
--Mac
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244993 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 14:21
phil.gerrard1  
Will, Mac:

> > I liked Pesci in Easy Money and My Cousin Vinny, both comedies. But
> > he has not done anything serious that was worthwhile outside of the
> > Scorsese films, IMHO.
>
> Sergio Leone's magnificent ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.

I only saw it again last year. I'm amazed I forgot that he was in it.
Thanks, Mac...

Best

Phil

Worried that this is just the start of the deterioration... :-)
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244994 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 15:22
Will Traynor  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:49c969Fo56cnU1 [at] individual.net...
> Will wrote:
>
>> I liked Pesci in Easy Money and My Cousin Vinny, both comedies. But
>> he has not done anything serious that was worthwhile outside of the
>> Scorsese films, IMHO.
>
> Sergio Leone's magnificent ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA.
> --
> --
> --Mac
>
>
>
>
>
>

Great movie. Pesci's line, "The four horsemen of the apocolypse." Pesci is
going to be in DeNiro's upcoming 'The Good Shepherd' too. His first film in
about 8 years.
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #244995 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 15:24
Will Traynor  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:49c96aFo56cnU2 [at] individual.net...
> Will wrote:
>
>> Actually, I've read just the opposite about Cape Fear. In a DeNiro
>> biography authored by Andy Dougan, called "Untouchable," it was
>> stated that DeNiro pushed Scorsese into doing that movie.
>
> CAPE FEAR was initially a project for Steven Spielberg, with
> Thomas Kenneally's "Schindler's Ark" intended for Martin
> Scorsese. The two directors later exchanged projects, with
> Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment handling CAPE FEAR.
> --
> --Mac
>

I haven't heard that story. Interesting. According to DeNiro's biography,
Scorsese was a bit sheepish about doing the film, but DeNiro kept pushing
him because he wanted to do the Max Cady role very badly.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #245010 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 20:01
Mac  
Will wrote:

> I haven't heard that story. Interesting. According to DeNiro's
> biography, Scorsese was a bit sheepish about doing the film, but
> DeNiro kept pushing him because he wanted to do the Max Cady role
> very badly.

Nick Nolte had to go on a crash diet for the role of Sam Bowden
because ol' Jack Benteen looked like he could kick De Niro's ass.
--
--
--Mac
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #245014 ] Mo, 03 April 2006 21:50
Will Traynor  
"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:49d67vFnirquU1 [at] individual.net...
> Will wrote:
>
>> I haven't heard that story. Interesting. According to DeNiro's
>> biography, Scorsese was a bit sheepish about doing the film, but
>> DeNiro kept pushing him because he wanted to do the Max Cady role
>> very badly.
>
> Nick Nolte had to go on a crash diet for the role of Sam Bowden
> because ol' Jack Benteen looked like he could kick De Niro's ass.
> --

Yeah, alcohol diet. Nick has never been the same since.

> --
> --Mac
>
>
>
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #246665 ] So, 09 April 2006 10:21
ahk  
At 12:45pm -0500, 03/31/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:

>Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is
>just a mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he
>doing. I was watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very
>much. The movie was a bit contrived but Connery is always interesting to
>watch. I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with Connery and Peter
>Boyle. Love that movie.

I remember seeing that when it first came out. It's better in a theater
than on tv. Perhaps Connery always had a hankering to do a Western. That
movie is the closest he'll ever get.

Too bad Peter Boyle was never cast as a main villain in a Bond flick.
Martin Scorsese (was: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/badnews) [message #246666 ] So, 09 April 2006 10:41
ahk  
At 12:22am -0500, 04/02/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:

>I think he's compromising now, that's for sure. I'm just not so sure he
>did any real compromising until the late 90s. IMHO, one of the mistakes
>Scorsese has made recently is the casting in his films. Let's face it,
>Leonardo DiCaprio is no DeNiro. Latching on to DiCaprio has been a
>tactical mistake and one made to become more mainstream with Hollywood.
>Sure, he's made some good casting decisions in some of his recent films
>(Daniel Day-Lewis, Cate Blanchett) but he's made some duds too (Cameron
>Diaz). And now he's got Leo in his latest film, too. Not for one minute
>did I believe Leo was Howard Hughes, lol. You look at the performances he
>got out of DeNiro, Keitel, Cathy Moriarty, Pesci, Burstyn, Liza Minnelli,
>Frank Vincent, Sharon Stone, Ray Liotta, Jerry Lewis, Sandra Bernhard,
>Juliette Lewis, etc., and there is no comparison with the acting I've
>seen in his recent films.

Jerry Lewis played a celebrity; Sandra Bernhard played herself. Not sure
what the director did for either. I disliked that movie and thought
Scorsese had said all he had to say about the influence of television in
"Taxi Driver".

As far as the performances he "got out of" the rest of those actors, I'll
defend almost any of 'em and say that they are damn good. When has Ray
Liotta ever given a bad performance? He's not an "A" list actor but he
adds something to the worst scripts, of which he's hired to make.
Re: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news [message #246679 ] So, 09 April 2006 18:00
Mac  
Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> At 12:45pm -0500, 03/31/06, willt65 [at] comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Connery's 70s films were a mixed bag, that's for sure. But the guy is
>> just a mega-star and people love to watch him, no matter what is he
>> doing. I was watching Just Cause the other night, and enjoyed it very
>> much. The movie was a bit contrived but Connery is always
>> interesting to watch. I'm still trying to find Outland on DVD, with
>> Connery and Peter Boyle. Love that movie.
>
> I remember seeing that when it first came out. It's better in a
> theater than on tv. Perhaps Connery always had a hankering to do a
> Western. That movie is the closest he'll ever get.

SHALAKO.
--
--
--Mac
Re: Martin Scorsese (was: Pierce Brosnan's the Matador: good news/bad news) [message #246682 ] So, 09 April 2006 20:22
Eric Grayson  
I saw some of the stuff that Hughes did for the HUAC committee; the
footage survives. Like him or not, DiCaprio did a HELL of a job
capturing the essence of that Hughes. On the other hand, having just
watched Katharine Hepburn in African Queen, I saw Cate's Kate as a real
caricature. It's not entirely her fault. Hepburn was difficult to
capture.

If you want bad performances, the film is rife with them: Faith
Domergue and especially Jean Harlow look and act NOTHING like the real
life ones.

I like the film anyway. It does what it needs to do. I'd rather watch
it again than Titanic any day of the week.

Eric
Vorheriges Thema:Lucky Number Slevin
Nächstes Thema:Casino Royale on HD Net
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 23:37:55 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,14121 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered