Yeah.
Sandler is the king of whores but at least he didnt have a respected career to sell out in the first place.

Jaco wrote:

At least he's honest about it, I suppose. I'd love, for once, one of these big stars to answer the "what drew you to this movie" question with the actual truth. It wasn't artistic merit, it wasn't the chance to highlight an issue or work with such-and-such. It was $5,000,000 up front with 2% on the gross and a slice of the merch.

EDIT: Incidentally, even if you just shoved that $5,000,000 in a basic bank account paying 0.25% interest, you'd earn $12,500 a month for doing stuff all. You'd never have to work again and could still live to a very good standard. Why the hell do these people continue working? I don't get it.

12.5k p.a. not p.m.

The film industry supports a lot of people beyond actors. Actors continue to work because the system provides them work, and off the back of that many other people get work. Actors get paid a lot, because they're considered an investment, off the back of which many people's pay-cheques are riding. Who cares if an actor sells out or not.

Yossarian wrote:

All actors sell out as soon as they leave theatre. Or something.

Not all might know him, but I always liked Mick Foleys (wrestler) response to being called a all-out. He simply listed all the arenas he headlined and sold out. It's a terrible joke but the idea of calling someone a sell out once they enter a realm of selling anything has always struck me as silly.

Jackson isn’t a box office draw of say Ford, it’s a ego thing. Gonna best him so i’ll have the crown. Not an admirable attitude to me.

Tempy wrote:

I don't think Jackson takes roles to make his name be #1 on a random chart somewhere.

I heard him say exactly that.

I saw The Favourite this morning, and Stan & Ollie this afternoon. Very different in tone and style, but I enjoyed them both. I know it’s nothing new to focus on the absurd, grotesque behaviour of the aristocracy, but I thought this film did it particularly well. The three leads are excellent; Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz are playing fairly similar characters, which helps Olivia Coleman stand out. Nicholas Hoult plays his role really well, too.

poprock wrote:

Pacino’s been in some proper stinkers in recent years too, hasn’t he?

As befits a man of his talent.

I will charitably take millions of pounds so I can work on something for merely tens of thousands.

McQuarrie (and presumably Cruise) is in for 2 more MIs.

Also announced that they’re filming these two back-to-back, presumably to save money.

Watched You Were Never Really Here last night. Not much to say about it really beyond it being incredible. Lynne Ramsay is a treasure.

I the interests of important scientific research, in the last few days I have (re)watched some M. Night Shyamalan films.

The Sixth Sense: I will never know for sure, because I had the twist spoiled for me, but I think the film tells you enough with its visuals that this one would be fairly easily worked out on its first viewing. So, putting that to one side, I think it’s still a decent enough film; it’s tense, and at times frightening. Toni Collette, in particular, is great, and brought a tear to my eye towards the end.

The Village: I really like this one, although it’s years since I’d seen it. What a belter of a cast! I can’t recall how much I’d seen of Adrian Brody or Brendan Gleeson when it came out, and I hadn’t remembered it was Bryce Dallas Howard in the lead. Jesse Eisenberg is in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-him part, although it is one of the films abiding images. This film is a fine example of where I think it’s unfair to say that his films are visually uninteresting; there are some cracking frames in here, and I find the early US with a hint of fantasy aesthetic appealing. Another one where I’d argue that, while the twist had a big impact on first viewing, the film bears repeated viewing.

Signs: I’ve got a soft spot for Mel Gibson playing a father in anything. Well, I’ve got a soft spot for his films full-stop (I can put his own problematic personality to one side) but I think he’s exceptional at convincing the audience that his character loves his children, and is simultaneously disarmed and empowered by that love, and urge to protect. You see it again in this film. I think he’s also great at portraying grief. And, while he often plays unhinged people, here I think he plays straight-laced pretty well; the scene where he’s running around the outside of the house trying to act intimidating is funny.

Unbreakable: I’ve never liked this. I feel like I should, because of what it’s about, but... I dunno. I find Bruce Willis hit and miss and, in this one, I think it’s a miss. Samuel L. Jackson is a wild miss, as per usual. He really is a hack. I also hate the boy playing Willis’s kid, so it’s a hard film to like. Of the four properly Shyamalan-y films I’ve watched the last few days, this is the only one I don’t like. I find the film, visually, too cold.

After Earth: I don’t blame Will Smith for coming up with a film he could do with his talentless son, but somebody should have stopped him. I imagine he’s the only person who wants his son’s character to live. It’s not really a Shyamalan-y film like the others. Totally unengaging, apart from the occasional points I was irritated by Choaden Smith’s voice, which made me realise that the TV had become the second screen.

The Last Airbender: Urgh.

Tempy wrote:

The worst thing about The Last Airbender is that it might put people off from the series, which is sublime.

Guilty. Watched it with my nephew who really liked the cartoon. When a kid is disappointed by a big screen movie, you know you've uh-oh'd.

I've seen the first 4 Shyamalan films @Andy listed and I enjoyed them all at the time. Only one I've rewatched since is Sixth Sense though.

Sixth Sense would have supported a sequel - imagine the kid grown up and solving cases etc.

Same with Unbreakable - though I see Glass is due out.

Signs and Village were self contained tales that I enjoyed. Felt a bit flat the ending of Village but certainly not short changed.

g.man wrote:

...also he's not getting any younger.

Yep.