Reply to Topic
Lionsgate has announced a new film teaming up Paul Haggis (Crash) and Russell Crowe.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1144191.story
First off, when did Russell Crowe become that much of a gamble? Because he doesn't make Iron Man movies? They talk about him like he's washed-up, over.
His Robin Hood will do just fine. And if State of Play was a box-office "dud," it wasn't because the quality of the film wasn't there. I thought it was excellent. Body of Lies was horrible and it saddens me to say that.
As to Haggis, well, I hated Crash, but I thought In the Valley of Elah was a pretty fine film. Although, yea, I guess I do think of him as a hack, but this film could change that? I also have trouble even seeing Haggis' name without cringing when I remember how Brokeback Mountain lost out to his piece of overwrought crap.
Anyone seen the French original this film will be based on? Of course, I find it fascinating how Hollywood keeps making films based on films from other countries. What's up with that?
I also want to point out a particular line that really should be looked at:
So it seemed intriguing to me to read that Lionsgate, which has largely been focusing lately on genre thrillers and horror movies (along with its Tyler Perry films), was willing to greenlight a movie that looked exactly like the kind of picture that Hollywood studios shun these days: a serious character-driven drama.
Sad, isn't it?
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...,1144191.story
Lionsgate gambles on Russell Crowe/Paul Haggis project
The actor and director's erratic track records don't faze the studio, which has had success with both men.
By Patrick Goldstein
August 4, 2009
Unless you're making "Transformers 3" or " Iron Man 2," every movie in Hollywood is a gamble in one way or another. But some gambles are more intriguing than others, like the one Lionsgate recently announced teaming Russell Crowe and Paul Haggis.
The two Oscar winners have joined forces on "The Next Three Days," a Haggis-directed adaptation of the 2008 French film "Pour Elle" that begins production in Pittsburgh in late September.
After all, both actor and filmmaker are considerable talents, but talents with erratic track records. Crowe almost always delivers a strong performance -- as he did in such recent films as "American Gangster" and "3:10 to Yuma" (the latter released by Lionsgate). But his last two films, "Body of Lies" and "State of Play," were box-office duds. Haggis is one of Hollywood's go-to screenwriters, having worked on the last two Bond films. But since his best picture Oscar win with "Crash" (also a Lionsgate film), he's struggled as a filmmaker, directing the admirable-but-little-seen "In the Valley of Elah" and creating "The Black Donnellys," a short-lived TV flop.
So it seemed intriguing to me to read that Lionsgate, which has largely been focusing lately on genre thrillers and horror movies (along with its Tyler Perry films), was willing to greenlight a movie that looked exactly like the kind of picture that Hollywood studios shun these days: a serious character-driven drama. After all, it was Haggis himself who called the picture an exploration of the deeper themes of faith and belief, describing the deeper theme thusly: "Would you save the woman you loved if you knew that by doing so, you would turn into a man that a woman could no longer love?" (Sounds like something Graham Greene might write.)
It sounds undeniably dramatically provocative. But is it commercial? Ask any screenwriter: At most of today's studios, if you come in and pitch a film about faith and belief, the production exec is most likely to respond by saying, "Could the faith and belief part come after we got to see Megan Fox and Robert Pattinson fight off a giant winged alien invader for about an hour?" So I called up Lionsgate Motion Picture Group President Joe Drake, who tried to put the latest studio deal in perspective.
I guess it should come as no surprise that he sees the film as more than just a character-driven drama. "The movie really has a lot more going on than what you read in Paul's description," Drake told me. "This is a great idea with a sticky concept. It's a premise that really grabs you -- how far will a guy go to get his wife and family back again? We can't compete with studios by making $200-million special-effects dramas, so what we're looking for are stories that are dramatic and original, but also suspenseful. I like to think of this film as a thriller with some great action in the third act, not just as a character drama."
But what about Russell Crowe? Is he still considered a movie star, at least by Lionsgate?
The Lionsgate chief had nothing but kudos for Crowe. "First off, he's one of the finest actors in the business," Drake said. "And I don't think anyone could handle the role better than Russell. He's still a major-league star, certainly in this kind of movie."
Drake wouldn't divulge how much Crowe and Haggis are getting paid, though sources close to the project say that neither man is getting his customary up-front salary. It is likely that Lionsgate, like most studios today, did a deal where the talent can participate in the film's profits after the studio has recouped its production and marketing expenses.
"The most I can say is that this isn't a big-budget movie, but it's not a tiny one either," said Drake. "It's appropriately budgeted for our time. The actors will do fine. If the movie is successful, everyone will do well in the end. We just look at this film as a great opportunity to work with some world-class talent."
The actor and director's erratic track records don't faze the studio, which has had success with both men.
By Patrick Goldstein
August 4, 2009
Unless you're making "Transformers 3" or " Iron Man 2," every movie in Hollywood is a gamble in one way or another. But some gambles are more intriguing than others, like the one Lionsgate recently announced teaming Russell Crowe and Paul Haggis.
The two Oscar winners have joined forces on "The Next Three Days," a Haggis-directed adaptation of the 2008 French film "Pour Elle" that begins production in Pittsburgh in late September.
After all, both actor and filmmaker are considerable talents, but talents with erratic track records. Crowe almost always delivers a strong performance -- as he did in such recent films as "American Gangster" and "3:10 to Yuma" (the latter released by Lionsgate). But his last two films, "Body of Lies" and "State of Play," were box-office duds. Haggis is one of Hollywood's go-to screenwriters, having worked on the last two Bond films. But since his best picture Oscar win with "Crash" (also a Lionsgate film), he's struggled as a filmmaker, directing the admirable-but-little-seen "In the Valley of Elah" and creating "The Black Donnellys," a short-lived TV flop.
So it seemed intriguing to me to read that Lionsgate, which has largely been focusing lately on genre thrillers and horror movies (along with its Tyler Perry films), was willing to greenlight a movie that looked exactly like the kind of picture that Hollywood studios shun these days: a serious character-driven drama. After all, it was Haggis himself who called the picture an exploration of the deeper themes of faith and belief, describing the deeper theme thusly: "Would you save the woman you loved if you knew that by doing so, you would turn into a man that a woman could no longer love?" (Sounds like something Graham Greene might write.)
It sounds undeniably dramatically provocative. But is it commercial? Ask any screenwriter: At most of today's studios, if you come in and pitch a film about faith and belief, the production exec is most likely to respond by saying, "Could the faith and belief part come after we got to see Megan Fox and Robert Pattinson fight off a giant winged alien invader for about an hour?" So I called up Lionsgate Motion Picture Group President Joe Drake, who tried to put the latest studio deal in perspective.
I guess it should come as no surprise that he sees the film as more than just a character-driven drama. "The movie really has a lot more going on than what you read in Paul's description," Drake told me. "This is a great idea with a sticky concept. It's a premise that really grabs you -- how far will a guy go to get his wife and family back again? We can't compete with studios by making $200-million special-effects dramas, so what we're looking for are stories that are dramatic and original, but also suspenseful. I like to think of this film as a thriller with some great action in the third act, not just as a character drama."
But what about Russell Crowe? Is he still considered a movie star, at least by Lionsgate?
The Lionsgate chief had nothing but kudos for Crowe. "First off, he's one of the finest actors in the business," Drake said. "And I don't think anyone could handle the role better than Russell. He's still a major-league star, certainly in this kind of movie."
Drake wouldn't divulge how much Crowe and Haggis are getting paid, though sources close to the project say that neither man is getting his customary up-front salary. It is likely that Lionsgate, like most studios today, did a deal where the talent can participate in the film's profits after the studio has recouped its production and marketing expenses.
"The most I can say is that this isn't a big-budget movie, but it's not a tiny one either," said Drake. "It's appropriately budgeted for our time. The actors will do fine. If the movie is successful, everyone will do well in the end. We just look at this film as a great opportunity to work with some world-class talent."
His Robin Hood will do just fine. And if State of Play was a box-office "dud," it wasn't because the quality of the film wasn't there. I thought it was excellent. Body of Lies was horrible and it saddens me to say that.
As to Haggis, well, I hated Crash, but I thought In the Valley of Elah was a pretty fine film. Although, yea, I guess I do think of him as a hack, but this film could change that? I also have trouble even seeing Haggis' name without cringing when I remember how Brokeback Mountain lost out to his piece of overwrought crap.
Anyone seen the French original this film will be based on? Of course, I find it fascinating how Hollywood keeps making films based on films from other countries. What's up with that?
I also want to point out a particular line that really should be looked at:
So it seemed intriguing to me to read that Lionsgate, which has largely been focusing lately on genre thrillers and horror movies (along with its Tyler Perry films), was willing to greenlight a movie that looked exactly like the kind of picture that Hollywood studios shun these days: a serious character-driven drama.
Sad, isn't it?
