edited by Jonathan Doyle

Mafioso (The Criterion Collection, 3.18.2008) Nino Badalamenti is a supervisor in a car manufacturing plant who hasn't taken a vacation in over two years. On his way out the door to visit his beloved childhood hometown of Sicily -- with his blonde wife and daughters -- Nino is handed a package by his boss and asked to deliver it to a powerful and influential Sicilian gangster named Don Vincenzo. Once in Sicily, Nino has a hoot seeing friends and family, but his wife has trouble fitting in and is unfairly dismissed as a snob by Nino's family. Even more worrisome, Nino finds himself entangled in an intricate web of secret mafioso dealings and is eventually sent on an unexpectedly... elaborate errand. (continued)

Upcoming

July 2

Hancock

July 3

The Whackness

July 4

Diminished Capacity

Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson

Holding Trevor

Kabluey

We are Together

July 9

Full Battle Rattle

July 11

A Man Named Pearl

August

Eight Miles High

Garden Party

Harold

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Journey to the Center of the Earth

Meet Dave

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

The Stone Angel

July 18

A Very British Gangster

Before I Forget

The Dark Knight

The Doorman

Felon

Lou Reed's Berlin

Transsiberian

July 22

Two Tickets to Paradise

July 23

Boy A

Gyllenhaal chirps in

email this story
read comments (9)
post a comment

Here's what Zodiac costar Jake Gyllenhaal said to Newsday's Lewis Beale yesterday regarding David Halbfinger's N.Y. Times article about Fincher's obsession with multiple takes (which Mark Ruffalo also commented upon in Devin Faraci's CHUD interview): "It is positive, whether or not I was willing to admit that at the time. It's like working with a great teacher or coach -- you hate them while you're doing it, and then you win the game, and you'll talk about that for the rest of your life. And the complications of that relationship are what make it so special. We did a lot of takes, but David wants something. He knows when something's honest, and people have different ways of getting there."

Garchik, not Luddy<< previous | next >>Harvey's "Hogs" review

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 28, 2007 at 04:37 PM

comment #1

malibugigolo says ...

After watching the movie Fincher was kind to him surprised it didn't take 200 takes?! Gyllenhall is a horrible actor. Any scenes he's in with any other actors he doesn't react off of them at all. So selfish. He can't steal a scene because he isn't even in them. He just humps his lines like he's in love with his own voice.

Downey is so good, ditto for Ruffalo.

Go work in TV Gyllenhall you hack.

Posted by malibugigolo at February 28, 2007 07:24 PM

comment #2

tfresca says ...

I never liked Jake I thought his bad wig did all the acting in Moonlight Mile. Wells you might as well stop putting up links to NY Times articles, I don't have a paid subscription and I don't know anyone else who does.

Posted by tfresca at February 28, 2007 07:39 PM

comment #3

JD says ...

If what you're saying is true malibugigolo, shouldn't Fincher be held responsible? If you do 50 takes with an actor you picked and the acting still doesn't work, you're clearly doing something wrong. Assuming that Gyllenhall's performance is weak, that is. Everyone else seems to think its his best.

Posted by JD at February 28, 2007 08:23 PM

comment #4

malibugigolo says ...

to JD:

I can only state what I think, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Maybe Fincher needed him to get the budget he wanted. I mean he got a very good performance out of Brad Pitt. So that's not a bad assumption on his part.

Gyllenhall had some line readings in the movie that were so bad I had to try with all my might not to cackle at.

The long soliloquy that was in Vanderbilt's script would have been a DISASTER if he did it. It would have come out like a tone deaf math professor telling us about his passion for math.

Posted by malibugigolo at February 28, 2007 08:32 PM

comment #5

PanTheFaun says ...

While Gyllenhaal isn't excellent in "Zodiac" like Downey or Ruffalo are, he is good and I had no issue with him-- and I usually can't see past how blatantly he "Acts" without actually disappearing in a role.

Posted by PanTheFaun at February 28, 2007 10:40 PM

comment #6

kyle21 says ...

Sounds like there is some confusion over whether people like the character Graysmith or the acting. Fincher got exactly what he wanted there. Fincher told Gyllenhaal he would do the movie if he would do it so maybe its worth stopping to consider. You either trust Fincher or you dont.

Posted by kyle21 at March 1, 2007 09:21 AM

comment #7

Metome says ...

Sorry but I think Jake had every right to voice his opinion in the NY Times article. Nothing that he said was out of line. He was just being honest about how he felt working for Fincher. Everyone seems to have forgotten Robert Downey Jr.'s comments about working for Fincher like being in a gulag. Yet Jake is taking all the brunt of this hatred. He acknowledged that Fincher was a very smart man, a great director, etc. He also acknowledged his own shortcomings and said he wished he were more mature about it all. Instead he is looked at a whining and harshly criticized by his castmate and friend (don't know if that is still the case) Mark Ruffalo. Yes, Mark has a valid point that they get paid a lot of money and have it a lot easier than other people, but Jake has a point that seeing his work be erased so quickly could be hard for an actor. Especially if they have done 90 or more takes.

While most people here are calling Jake a horrible actor, I am very glad to see he is mostly getting great reviews for the movie.

Posted by Metome at March 1, 2007 10:31 AM

comment #8