|
Post by Lauryn on Jun 26, 2010 11:27:20 GMT -5
Been reading in the news o’ the world that Russell Crowe is tipped to play Robert McCall in the long gestating movie version of “The Equalizer.” It’s the sort of casting that seems right on the surface, gravitas, heft, and all that, but Woodward’s McCall was also ironical, courtly, and capable of lightness. I hope they don’t turn it into an “urban hellhole / tortured hero” glum fest. Maybe my worry is just a hangover from Robin Hood, LOL! I’m sure RC will get more jollies throwing perps and pervs up against the wall and shouting at them than he ever did as one half of the “fun couple” with Cate Blanchett.
I hadn’t realized that, when the Weinsteins held the property, that director David Von Ancken (Seraphim Falls) was attached. I wonder if Pierce or Liam’s name came up as possible leads? Not sure if McCall is precisely right for Pierce –that is, if you want to replicate Woodward’s booming baritone-- though he’d be dandy otherwise.
I wouldn’t half mind Pierce getting the nod for the part of Control. He’d be perfect and it would be fun to watch that prickly relationship, (especially with Russell Crowe’s McCall on the other end) go snap, crackle, and pop on the screen. But if it’s period (80’s) it could be scary. Think of the size of cell phones back then! <large wink>
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jun 27, 2010 13:21:36 GMT -5
Crowe made Robin Hood into such a glum miserable pompous BORING character that I'm not ready to ever see him act again. I think he's wrong for The Equalizer. As you say McCall had two sides and they'd have done better getting an older (he's about a decade too young - not that he looks it anymore) more old school actor who had as you say that courtliness, irony and charm. I think Liam would have been great but his role in Taken might be seen as too similar and he's supposedly doing another of those. I'd have enjoyed seeing Pierce tackle it as well - if only to see him in a lot of trench coats - but he might have too much charisma and charm for the more low key aspect of the role. Both also might be too much action stars. Part of the neat twist about Woodward's The Equalizer is that he looked more like a civil servant than an ex spy. More George Smiley less James Bond. My first choice would be Cairan Hinds who I think would fit the roll to a T and then Pierce as Control would be out of any danger from dodging cell phones of any size.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Jun 28, 2010 10:54:26 GMT -5
Crowe made Robin Hood into such a glum miserable pompous BORING character that I'm not ready to ever see him act again. Ouch! Though, in fairness, there’s plenty of blame to go around (paging Sir Ridley Scott!) At this point in both their careers it seems like they choose material (and each other) to re-enforce their own worst tendencies (long-windedness, self-importance, dreariness). I know they wanted to distance the film from Errol Flynn and glorious Technicolor but the thing is so held hostage to dirt-under-the-nails “realism” (what is more tiresome in period movies, these days?) that 80 percent of it looks dull as dishwater. My old art teacher once told me “whatever subject you’re working on, don’t mix mud.” If anyone should know this, it’s freakin’ Ridley Scott. It’s kind of pointless because, for all that fidelity, they go galloping off to some fairyland (or is it a Python sketch?) where Robin’s dad, the stonemason, wrote the Magna Carta and, worse yet, it means Robin has to throw in his lot with a bunch of pissy nobles instead of the deserving poor. This confirms my theory, untested though it is, that the writer was on hallucinogens and everyone else was on downers. The very best thing about the movie is that it makes you want to curl up in front of the screen again with Flynn, de Havilland, Rathbone, and Rains, and one of the top five film scores in cinema history, just to get the taste out of your mouth. I am beginning to think that I have to go back to “LA Confidential” and “The Insider” to find a real suggestion of range in a Russell Crowe performance. I thought he was awful in “A Beautiful Mind,” but what do I know? He was decent in “Master and Commander” but Paul Bettany outshined him. I like your suggestion of Ciaran Hinds for “The Equalizer” role -- an “old school” actor who’s the right age and can be both commanding and subtle. I think you do need someone of that vintage and style to carry it off. I’m sure that’s not the direction the film is going, but that’s a shame. Part of the mystique of the character is that, though he understands the hardness of the world and its compromises, he’s also a bit “out of time,” a romantic figure, a white knight, and you need someone civilized and chivalrous to play him. Good point about McCall’s demeanor as a spy, maybe more Smiley than Bond. MCall still had some stature, physicality, and training, even if they did give him younger sidekicks for some of the heavier gunplay and rough stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Ace on Jun 28, 2010 15:30:28 GMT -5
Ouch! Though, in fairness, there’s plenty of blame to go around (paging Sir Ridley Scott!) At this point in both their careers it seems like they choose material (and each other) to re-enforce their own worst tendencies (long-windedness, self-importance, dreariness). I know they wanted to distance the film from Errol Flynn and glorious Technicolor but the thing is so held hostage to dirt-under-the-nails “realism” (what is more tiresome in period movies, these days?) that 80 percent of it looks dull as dishwater. My old art teacher once told me “whatever subject you’re working on, don’t mix mud.” If anyone should know this, it’s freakin’ Ridley Scott. It’s kind of pointless because, for all that fidelity, they go galloping off to some fairyland (or is it a Python sketch?) where Robin’s dad, the stonemason, wrote the Magna Carta and, worse yet, it means Robin has to throw in his lot with a bunch of pissy nobles instead of the deserving poor. This confirms my theory, untested though it is, that the writer was on hallucinogens and everyone else was on downers. The very best thing about the movie is that it makes you want to curl up in front of the screen again with Flynn, de Havilland, Rathbone, and Rains, and one of the top five film scores in cinema history, just to get the taste out of your mouth. There entire film was f'd up. Robin Hood who isn't really Robin Hood but a foot soldier/archer (who shouldn't even be able to fight with a sword let alone on horseback in chain mail against trained knights) who aligns himself with barons to protect their property from the King instead of that Baron who aligns himself with the poor. He actually steals from the church to give to the local baron so I guess the poor peasants can work in his fields to get some of that food. You've got Maid Marion shooting at half starved children stealing her grain - who then mind bogglingly save her then ride into battle on shetland ponies. I won't even go into all the anti-French stuff when most of the British nobility were Normans and Norman descendants who only spoke French. It's Trickle Down Theft in Sherwood Forrest - stealing from the richer to give to the rich so they can provide an opportunity for over taxed peasants to work themselves to death for food! And as you say all that filthy gritty mud to show "realism" in a film where faux Robin's father the stonemason drafts the Magna Carta, where the French invade on WWII landing craft to fight an amalgamation of people who should never have been there - at least not in the roles they were. (at a push Robin should have been on the cliff with the other archers). Even worse it made me think Kevin Costner wasn't that bad. Luckily I was able to cleanse all these horrid thoughts with Errol in beautiful technicolor since I have the DVD. L.A. Confidential may be the last performance I really enjoyed and even then I was more interested by Guy Pearce. Woodward as McCall was certainly more physically imposing than Guinness as Smiley - though neither was an action hero tough guff. With Crowe's casting it's evident where they're going with McCall and the horror is they're also supposedly remaking Tinker, Tailor as a film. How they can compress all that in 2 hours, cast anyone better than Guinness is a concern but the dread is feeling they're going to make Smiley very un-Smiley in the casting.
|
|
|
Post by Lauryn on Jun 28, 2010 16:39:32 GMT -5
I guess it’s like Clark Kent’s glasses. They put on their knightly garb, et viola! Their secret identity is safe. You half expect Alec Guinness had something to do with it. “These aren’t the yeomen you’re looking for.” Then he whisks them away to a secret Jedi-style camp in the woods where they learn to fight like Templars. Oh, wait, they skipped that part.
At that point my husband and I looked at each other in the theater and said WTF?!?!?!
That was the most hilarious part of all. What a confused lot, those Normans! Are we sure it wasn’t a Monty Python sketch?
Knight#1: There’s a chip shop. I’m starved!
Knight#2: [rubs his stomach] Ahhhh! Pommes frites au Dauphinoise!
Knight#1: Get stuffed!! That’s Freedom Fries to you, you Frenchie!
Knight#2: Your mothairrr eats cuisse de grenouilles! On a little tiny bed of petit pois!
Knight#1: No she doesn’t!
Knight#2: Does!
Knight#1: Doesn’t!
Knight#2: Does! [mincing] Petit, petit, petit pois!
Higgins boats! Hey, the Frenchies should have been invading their own coast! My head hurts.
Bite your tongue!
Its DVD sales and rentals should be skyrocketing right about now, LOL!
Gawd help us! That really, really is depressing.
|
|