Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
July 2006
July 2006
By Patrick Goldstein, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
4:31 PM PDT, April 21, 2008
I thought Francis Ford Coppola was being cranky last fall when he badmouthed Al Pacino and Robert De Niro -- the stars of Coppola's immortal "Godfather" films -- for taking parts for the money and losing their passion for doing great work. "I met both Pacino and De Niro when they were really on the come," Coppola told GQ magazine. "Now Pacino is very rich, maybe because he never spends any money he just puts it in his mattress. . . . They all live off the fat of the land."
Coppola was right on the money. The two icons of '70s New Hollywood, heroes to a generation of young actors and filmmakers, have become parodies of themselves, making payday movies and turning in performances that are hollow echoes of the electrically charged work they did in such films as "Serpico," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver."
"88 Minutes," a hapless thriller, stars Pacino as a hotshot forensic psychiatrist stalked by a mysterious killer. The critics have had a field day -- when I last looked, it was the lowest-rated movie of the year on Metacritic.com. While the critics pounced on Jon Avnet for his inept pacing -- despite its title, the film actually runs for a seemingly endless 107 minutes -- it's Pacino who got a real drubbing.
The New York Times' Manohla Dargis zeroed in on what might be Pacino's most glaring failing, his vanity, describing the actor as having "a dusky orange tan that suggests a charbroiled George Hamilton and an elevated poof of hair that appears to have been engineered to put Mr. Pacino within vertical range of his female costars." Throughout the film, Pacino, who turns 68 on Friday, is surrounded by nubile young actresses who play students lusting after or enamored by him. One of the film's bizarre moments occurs when Pacino and a comely student rush back to his apartment, where, in the midst of their desperate efforts to locate the killer, she takes off her blouse and tosses it on his stairs.
De Niro's most recent film, "What Just Happened?," an inside-the-movie-biz comedy, got such an abysmal reception at Sundance that it limped out of the festival without a sale (it's expected to close the Cannes Film Festival this year). De Niro cut his longtime ties with CAA last week, defecting to Endeavor, inspiring a venomous response purportedly from one CAA agent that was e-mailed all over town. Claiming that De Niro asks for a $1-million production fee on his pictures to help fund his Tribeca empire in New York, it minces few words, saying, "Bobby held us responsible for his own greed, his own avarice and his own megalomania. And it's just like the studios now ask us: Why should we pay this guy -- who doesn't open a movie -- the payoff to his production company, just so he can add his name as a producer?"
There's more at the link below...
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-goldstein22apr22,0,6394025.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
4:31 PM PDT, April 21, 2008
I thought Francis Ford Coppola was being cranky last fall when he badmouthed Al Pacino and Robert De Niro -- the stars of Coppola's immortal "Godfather" films -- for taking parts for the money and losing their passion for doing great work. "I met both Pacino and De Niro when they were really on the come," Coppola told GQ magazine. "Now Pacino is very rich, maybe because he never spends any money he just puts it in his mattress. . . . They all live off the fat of the land."
Coppola was right on the money. The two icons of '70s New Hollywood, heroes to a generation of young actors and filmmakers, have become parodies of themselves, making payday movies and turning in performances that are hollow echoes of the electrically charged work they did in such films as "Serpico," "Dog Day Afternoon," "Mean Streets" and "Taxi Driver."
"88 Minutes," a hapless thriller, stars Pacino as a hotshot forensic psychiatrist stalked by a mysterious killer. The critics have had a field day -- when I last looked, it was the lowest-rated movie of the year on Metacritic.com. While the critics pounced on Jon Avnet for his inept pacing -- despite its title, the film actually runs for a seemingly endless 107 minutes -- it's Pacino who got a real drubbing.
The New York Times' Manohla Dargis zeroed in on what might be Pacino's most glaring failing, his vanity, describing the actor as having "a dusky orange tan that suggests a charbroiled George Hamilton and an elevated poof of hair that appears to have been engineered to put Mr. Pacino within vertical range of his female costars." Throughout the film, Pacino, who turns 68 on Friday, is surrounded by nubile young actresses who play students lusting after or enamored by him. One of the film's bizarre moments occurs when Pacino and a comely student rush back to his apartment, where, in the midst of their desperate efforts to locate the killer, she takes off her blouse and tosses it on his stairs.
De Niro's most recent film, "What Just Happened?," an inside-the-movie-biz comedy, got such an abysmal reception at Sundance that it limped out of the festival without a sale (it's expected to close the Cannes Film Festival this year). De Niro cut his longtime ties with CAA last week, defecting to Endeavor, inspiring a venomous response purportedly from one CAA agent that was e-mailed all over town. Claiming that De Niro asks for a $1-million production fee on his pictures to help fund his Tribeca empire in New York, it minces few words, saying, "Bobby held us responsible for his own greed, his own avarice and his own megalomania. And it's just like the studios now ask us: Why should we pay this guy -- who doesn't open a movie -- the payoff to his production company, just so he can add his name as a producer?"
There's more at the link below...
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-goldstein22apr22,0,6394025.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Well, i do agree that both actors have certainly sold out and have delivered a lot of crap over the years. However, I don't agree in pointing the finger soley at them as there are MANY age old actors that have sold out. Then again, it's much like anything in big business -- you earn the respect through hard work, you eventually get the big paycheck. It's a lot like watching the big CEO at work -- you wonder what the hell they really do all day besides take long lunches and download MP3s. It would seem they have the plush job, but many of them took the long effort to get there, so they earn the right to make 3/4 of the company profits and spend most of thier time looking important but really contribute very little. It's just the way it goes, i guess. 
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
March 2008
March 2008
I was thinking about this very same thing while watching Insomnia(Al's last decent movie) the other night. My two favorite actors are old men now and just arent the same...but they are not the only ones...
Nic Cage
Jack Nicholson
Jody Foster
Harrison Ford
Tom Hanks
Nic Cage
Jack Nicholson
Jody Foster
Harrison Ford
Tom Hanks
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
October 2007
October 2007
bladerunner, I'm not sure about what "selling out" means, but all the actors you mentioned could have retired nicely many many years ago without suffering because of high gas prices. 
What motivates them to continue and sometimes act in some questionable movies/scripts is anyone's guess. Perhaps they actually like their job since they cannot be like regular people regardless? Just a thought...
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Apr 23, 2008]
What motivates them to continue and sometimes act in some questionable movies/scripts is anyone's guess. Perhaps they actually like their job since they cannot be like regular people regardless? Just a thought...
[Post edited by Skyhawk on Apr 23, 2008]
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Quote:
bladerunner, I'm not sure about what "selling out" means, but all the actors you mentioned could have retired nicely many many years ago without suffering because of high gas prices.
Hawk, sometimes you're an ass, but that's what I like about you! You're one of the few here that can make me laugh!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
Good post Falcon. In my opinion, the last good Al Pacino movies were The Devil's Advocate (1997), and Heat (1995), although Any Given Sunday (1999) was OK too. So, he's in a slump definitely IMO.
Deniro on the other hand always seems to have a good film every year or two (he's been in many films), and I did enjoy that CIA film, The Good Shepherd on HD-DVD last year (rental).
But paying that extra fee? That's similar to what got Tom Cruise dumped by Viacom/Paramount (at the end of 2006), as CEO Summer Redstone no longer wanted to pay Cruise's annual production fee (up to $10 million a year) that offered Paramount 'first look' on his Cruise/Wagner projects. And we know that that the Cruise box appeal has been going downward for a few years now.
Note: M:I 3 is one of the very best transfers on HD-DVD.
-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)
Deniro on the other hand always seems to have a good film every year or two (he's been in many films), and I did enjoy that CIA film, The Good Shepherd on HD-DVD last year (rental).
But paying that extra fee? That's similar to what got Tom Cruise dumped by Viacom/Paramount (at the end of 2006), as CEO Summer Redstone no longer wanted to pay Cruise's annual production fee (up to $10 million a year) that offered Paramount 'first look' on his Cruise/Wagner projects. And we know that that the Cruise box appeal has been going downward for a few years now.
Note: M:I 3 is one of the very best transfers on HD-DVD.-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
March 2008
March 2008
Who said anything about "selling out"? I said they got old. Lost the edge. Whats wrong with the gas prices? They seem just fine to me.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Quote:
But paying that extra fee? That's similar to what got Tom Cruise dumped by Viacom/Paramount (at the end of 2006), as CEO Summer Redstone no longer wanted to pay Cruise's annual production fee (up to $10 million a year) that offered Paramount 'first look' on his Cruise/Wagner projects.
LMAO!!!
And you call yourself a "Republican"! Yeah, it's OK for Bush and all his oil buddies to screw America, but Tom Cruise is just going too far with his measly ten-million dollar demands! You really are a piece of work, Jimi Love! What a riot!
[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Apr 23, 2008]
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Member since:
June 2006
June 2006
Wow Tim... you read my post above, and somehow thought it was in reference to "it's OK for Bush and all his oil buddies to screw America" ...? Take a deep breath and rethink dude. Here you are, yet again, lumping politics into a website discussion concerning movies...
And Tim, LACK OF PRODUCTION AND INCREASED DEMAND ON SUPPLY is what leads to high energy prices (whether oil, electricity, etc). Bush and most Republicans want to produce MORE OIL, providing a LARGER SUPPLY, so that prices will stop escalating (because of demand too, remember?).... but the Democrats don't want to, yet are the first to cry and complain about 'high energy prices'.
It's like someone on the radio said the other day... politicians cause many of our problems (higher taxes, deficits, etc) and then are the first ones complaining about it. IF they really cared about HIGH 'this' and 'that', then do something realistic about it and quit the griping!
In summary (for you Tim)...
Republicans - SUPPORT more oil production, gasoline refineries, and increased electrical energy plants. But your buddies - most Democrats - OPPOSE... and then whine about the resulting shortages, and higher prices.
So you like the Democrat 'energy' policy Tim?
-Uh, no thanks!
-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)
And Tim, LACK OF PRODUCTION AND INCREASED DEMAND ON SUPPLY is what leads to high energy prices (whether oil, electricity, etc). Bush and most Republicans want to produce MORE OIL, providing a LARGER SUPPLY, so that prices will stop escalating (because of demand too, remember?).... but the Democrats don't want to, yet are the first to cry and complain about 'high energy prices'.
It's like someone on the radio said the other day... politicians cause many of our problems (higher taxes, deficits, etc) and then are the first ones complaining about it.
IF they really cared about HIGH 'this' and 'that', then do something realistic about it and quit the griping!In summary (for you Tim)...
Republicans - SUPPORT more oil production, gasoline refineries, and increased electrical energy plants. But your buddies - most Democrats - OPPOSE... and then whine about the resulting shortages, and higher prices.
So you like the Democrat 'energy' policy Tim?
-Uh, no thanks!
-JIMI LOVE (the Voodoo Child)
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Member since:
March 2002
March 2002
Jimi Love,
Again, your memory serves you so wrong! Timmy is NOT a Democrat, but you'd know that if you have read my posts over the years. I support neither party since both sides have gotten us into more messes than I care to debate. But again, you'd know that if you've kept up with me over the past couple years. Apparently, you just read what you want but still don't read everything, which is a shame because at leat my posts are short and to the point.
Tim (weeding out the spew salads)
[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Apr 24, 2008]
Again, your memory serves you so wrong! Timmy is NOT a Democrat, but you'd know that if you have read my posts over the years. I support neither party since both sides have gotten us into more messes than I care to debate. But again, you'd know that if you've kept up with me over the past couple years. Apparently, you just read what you want but still don't read everything, which is a shame because at leat my posts are short and to the point.
Tim (weeding out the spew salads)
[Post edited by Tim Raynor on Apr 24, 2008]
