Page 1 of 1
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 10:38 am
by Leisher
Latest movie bombs.
That article is brutal on him, but brings up a few strong questions.
The first being, why is Clooney considered such a huge star? All of his movies are bombs except for Ocean's Eleven and in those he had Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, etc. to help push the box office.
Let's be honest, Clooney won't be winning any acting Oscars since every character he plays is the same person. He has all the range of Will Farrell. Still, I think it was very smart on his part to stay single. I believe that alone is what keeps him in the limelight as it gives the tabloids something to discuss and follow, while giving female fans the message that he's "available".
Are the Hollywood media going to start turning on him? Look at that article, it's not just a rundown of the weekend box office, but a rip on Clooney. They make a point of explaining how Clooney did a lot of the re-writing on this script and even quit the Writer's Guild because they wouldn't give him credit for it. Then they point out how the script is what most critics bashed...? Ouch. Seems personal.
Throw onto that the fact that the writer talks about Clooney's past failures. Double ouch. No wonder his publicist didn't return the calls.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 2:12 pm
by Malcolm
They thought "Leatherheads" would bring in the mid-teen audience? Yeah, cos there's nothing "mid-teens" like more than waxing nostalgic about the early days of pro football.
Clooney is & will forever be famous for "ER." Just like David Duchovny will always be Fox Mulder. George's just been around massive budgets all his life, it appears he just don't know how to work w\ a small one. It's not like he's less talented than other leading hacks, he just returns less of a dividend.
& writing credit for "Leatherheads" is the type of thing I'd fight to keep OFF my resume.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:39 pm
by WSGrundy
But he is so much more then a movie star. He cares about the environment and those that are taken advantage of by evil republicans and corporations.
My guess is that people just aren't caring or smart enough to understand his films.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? is pretty awesome.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:57 pm
by GORDON
MY HAIR.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:41 pm
by Leisher
My guess is that people just aren't caring or smart enough to understand his films.
Return of the Killer Tomatoes
Red Surf
Unbecoming Age
Predator: The Concert
Return to Horror High
The Harvest
One Fine Day
Batman & Robin
The Peacemaker
Out of Sight
The Thin Red Line
Solaris
Spy Kids
Spy Kids 3D: Game Over
Ocean's Twelve
Ocean's Thirteen
Intolerable Cruelty
I think people understand suckfests. But then again, maybe all of those were over the public's heads.
Granted Ocean's Eleven and The Perfect Storm were good and I hear nothing but good things about O Brother, Where Art Thou?, but the rest of his recent work hasn't been well received by audiences or critics.
Those films being:
Leatherheads
Michael Clayton
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Syrianna
Three Kings
The Good German
Good Night, and Good Luck
I think Clooney would get more folks into his dramas if he made more action/comedy films. He is at his best on screen when he gets to play a character like Danny Ocean.
On top of that, most of the dramas in that "recent" list had issues... period pieces rarely do well (3 of them), one was controversial for it's possible lack of truth (Confessions), and one was a political message (Syrianna). I don't know why Clayton didn't do better. It looked decent. Perhaps it's because Law & Order is on 24/7 on like 6 channels every hour? Maybe it's because going to a movie costs $50 and people don't want to waste their money on something they can watch on their HDTV at home? I mean, seeing Michael Clayton on the big screen isn't as crucial to enjoying it, as say, seeing Jurassic Park on the big screen.
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:18 pm
by Malcolm
Three Kings was slightly above the level of a mindless action flick. Solaris even had its good points, albeit that film was fucked in so many other ways as to be incomprehensible.
Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:28 am
by GORDON
WE'RE IN A TIGHT SPOT.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:11 pm
by Alhazad
Malcolm wrote:They thought "Leatherheads" would bring in the mid-teen audience? Yeah, cos there's nothing "mid-teens" like more than waxing nostalgic about the early days of pro football.
You misread. The opening of the film was expected to amass millions of dollars in the "mid-teens," which I suppose means an expectation of somewhere around 14-16 million.
Granted, it was horrible phrasing and the person responsible should be shot.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:41 pm
by Malcolm
Alhazad wrote:Malcolm wrote:They thought "Leatherheads" would bring in the mid-teen audience? Yeah, cos there's nothing "mid-teens" like more than waxing nostalgic about the early days of pro football.
You misread. The opening of the film was expected to amass millions of dollars in the "mid-teens," which I suppose means an expectation of somewhere around 14-16 million.
Granted, it was horrible phrasing and the person responsible should be shot.
Yeah, I had a lot of booze in me at the time.
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:28 pm
by Alhazad
This implies that there are times when you don't have a lot of booze in you, a patently salacious suggestion.