Hurt in "The Incredible Hulk"

email this story
read comments (62)
post a comment

It's always somewhat depressing when a masterful older actor who's enjoying one of those rare late-period career grooves accepts a straight paycheck job as a villain in an empty-ass franchise flick.

I mean, just reading the damn trade stories about same deflates your world. Oh, that's right, you tell yourself -- I forgot that what a pleasure it is to watch amazingly talented performers punch a clock and debase themselves. Every so often, life requires us to bend over and hold our noses in order to pay the bills, but it's extra-gloomy when guys like William Hurt succumb.

Here's an indication of what Hurt is facing and why he's more open than usual to straight-paycheck jobs.

Secrecy is repugnant<< previous | next >>Caro dissing Farrelly Bros. "Kid"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 13, 2007 at 11:46 AM

comment #1

cbuckie says ...

His straight paycheck jobs started awhile back when he starred in "Lost In Space"

Posted by cbuckie at June 13, 2007 12:12 PM

comment #2

Me says ...

I thought I read somewhere that Edward Norton is re-working the script, himself. After American History X, I'm kind of intrigued about what he'll do with free reign on the Hulk story. And if he's got some good actors surrounding him, it could turn out pretty good (or it could suck).

Posted by Me at June 13, 2007 12:12 PM

comment #3

Moviezzz says ...

William Hurt is a great actor, but if you look at his career, he has been doing quite a few "paycheck" jobs over the years. If you look at his filmography, he has had countless roles over the past 10 years that most people here have never even heard of, let alone seen.

Why is THE HULK worthy of scorn but not LOST IN SPACE or MR BROOKS? It will probably do better at the box office, and get him even better roles.

It makes sense from an actor's perspective.

Posted by Moviezzz at June 13, 2007 12:13 PM

comment #4

jeffmcm says ...

It's okay for Hurt to get a paycheck for Mr. Brooks or The Village or Michael but not this?

Posted by jeffmcm at June 13, 2007 12:13 PM

comment #5

Noah says ...

It's also okay for Michael Arndt to take a paycheck job writing Toy Story 3 because Wells likes him.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 12:16 PM

comment #6

MASON says ...

Norton reworks every script he's involved with. He has a rep of being a tremendous pain in the ass who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. And it's killing his career -- filmmakers are saying life is too short with work with him, despite his talent. It definitely cost him the lead role in The Brothers Bloom. He's only doing the Hulk to stay on the radar.

Posted by MASON at June 13, 2007 12:16 PM

comment #7

OddDuck says ...

I'm actually starting to wonder if this movie could turn out ok now. Both Norton and Hurt are obvuously great talents, and while Hurt has unfortunately taken some embarrassingly bad money jobs (but not that many, really), for the most part Norton hasn't. And this is one instance where I would welcome Norton's instinct to interfere with the writer/director/whoever-he-has-to because it's obvious after the first Hulk, that this one is going to aim for more of a straight-up conventional comic book movie vibe, and a little bit of Norton flavor might help it straddle the fine line between guilty pleasure and the suck.

Posted by OddDuck at June 13, 2007 12:17 PM

comment #8

Ron Lim says ...

Jesus Jeff... Is it the concept of superpowers that turns you off instantly?

Aside from the "straight" comic book films like American Splendor, Ghost World, History of Violence, etc, do you like ANY of the costumed hero flicks? Just curious.

Posted by Ron Lim at June 13, 2007 12:17 PM

comment #9

Craig Kennedy says ...

If my memory serves (and that's no guarantee at this point), Jeff liked Superman Returns quite a bit.

I don't know what he's crying about though, this isn't exactly like Peter O'Toole in King Ralph or anything.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at June 13, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #10

BNick says ...

Jeff raved about Superman Returns when he first saw it but then cooled off once he figured out people generally weren't feeling it as much as he did.

I think in his year-end piece he said it could have been good with a half-hour cut out or something.

Personally I think the movie gets infinitely better on multiple viewings.

Posted by BNick at June 13, 2007 12:33 PM

comment #11

Geoff says ...

I'm glad Lost in Space was brought up. But so what? He's given me genuine pleasure with A History of Violence...and even Mr. Brooks. I'm not really pissed.

Posted by Geoff at June 13, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #12

Kristopher Tapley says ...

This project is much more interesting than all of that, Jeff.

Posted by Kristopher Tapley at June 13, 2007 12:35 PM

comment #13

rgmax99 says ...

Edward Norton is reworking a script to a film in which he appears?

Surely not.

Anyway, I hope Hurt doesn't come off too badly. His "return" (if you want to call it that) is much welcome indeed.

Posted by rgmax99 at June 13, 2007 12:40 PM

comment #14

Spacesheik says ...

For a minute there I thought you were going after Pacino in OCEAN'S 13.

Posted by Spacesheik at June 13, 2007 12:44 PM

comment #15

Rothchild says ...

Noah, being a working screenwriter, which you aren't, I'd like to think I have a better idea of why we do what we do. It's offensive to keep saying that the only reason anyone would write Toy Story 3 is for a paycheck. I'm sure if you were a working screenwriter, which you aren't, and someone offered you a gig writing a sequel to a film you loved, you'd jump on it. Especially if it was in your wheelhouse.

Stop being a fucker.

Posted by Rothchild at June 13, 2007 1:05 PM

comment #16

Noah says ...

You're right, Toy Story 3 is definitely a movie that people write because of a love of art. A sequel to a sequel is truly a labor of love. Winning an Oscar and that's how somebody decides to cash in? Just because I'm not a working screenwriter (nor would I aspire to be one) doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion. You're being a fucker. Just because you can do an easy gig and get paid for it doesn't mean that you should do it.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 1:09 PM

comment #17

hatchetface says ...

Didn't William Hurt's agent imbezzle a shit-load of money from him a couple years back? He was located here (Portland, OR) briefly for a time while working on a Chekhov play, and each person I know who spoke with him during that period said he was totally aces: a cool, laid back guy who was still very engaged with live stage performance. Love for the craft or whatever aside, rumor was that the financial stuff had hurt him very, very badly.

Can't explain Lost in Space, though.

Posted by hatchetface at June 13, 2007 1:13 PM

comment #18

MASON says ...

Amen, Rothchild. Toy Story 1 and 2 were two very well-written movies. Arndt has nothing to apologize for.

Posted by MASON at June 13, 2007 1:14 PM

comment #19

Noah says ...

The point is not whether they were well-written or not. The point is the motive behind taking the job and I assure you the primary motivation for Arndt was money.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 1:20 PM

comment #20

MASON says ...

Shame on him. I guess he should only write on spec and hope another miracle like LMS happens.

Posted by MASON at June 13, 2007 1:29 PM

comment #21

Noah says ...

Um, he's an Oscar winner and the writer of an enormously successful film. I think people would be interested to read his spec scripts.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 1:47 PM

comment #22

MASON says ...

Of course they would. But selling them and getting them made is another, much more difficult thing -- despite his pedigree. Just ask guys like Scott Frank and John Logan. No matter who you are, studios/financiers do not want to buy, much less make the kind of scripts I bet you think Arndt should be writing. Sad, but it's never been more true.

Posted by MASON at June 13, 2007 1:55 PM

comment #23

christian says ...

i'll give arndt a hearty pass because pixar has excellent taste in material, even their sequels.

but what about the big stars who pimp products?

Posted by christian at June 13, 2007 1:56 PM

comment #24

Noah says ...

Yes, but by writing a sequel to a sequel, isn't Arndt just adding the problem? The problem being that we never see anything new or original? I mean, I didn't think Little Miss Sunshine reinvented the wheel, but I would have like to have seen his obvious talents put to better use.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:03 PM

comment #25

Rothchild says ...

Toy Story 3 isn't necessarily an easy gig. Yes, some sequels don't require a lot of effort (if you're talented). When those go wrong, you stand there in awe wondering, "how did you fuck that up?" There are others where you're just thankful people came up with a good story to tell. Toy Story 2 was a great movie because people at Pixar care about story. To make that great of a sequel and follow it up with a mediocre entry would be the first official mark against them*.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of sequels. Are you going to tell me the world would be a better place without Godfather II? You've picked an odd stance to defend here.

* Not everyone thought Cars was a misstep. Even if it wasn't as good as their other films.

Posted by Rothchild at June 13, 2007 2:07 PM

comment #26

OddDuck says ...

Hey Noah,

Somebody a few months back tried to equate Arndt's job working on Toy Story 3 with Eddie Murphy's on Norbit.

Wow that poster was a douchebag.

Posted by OddDuck at June 13, 2007 2:10 PM

comment #27

Noah says ...

Look, you people obviously have some great love for the Toy Story series and that's fine. It's a good series. But the motive behind taking the role is not completely different than the motives behind Eddie Murphy doing Norbit. They are both jobs that are intended to make them wealthier. Maybe Toy Story 3 will be like Godfather 2 and will be a great film, but that doesn't change the motivation behind Arndt taking the job.

Look, I like Pixar and I like the Toy Story movies. But Michael Arndt just won an Oscar and he could've taken a route like Alan Ball, who achieved success and decided to create Six Feet Under (which I didn't like, by the waY) which was clearly a labor of love. I think that Arndt, being an Oscar winner and a success, could have created something new and it would have been met with interest. I mean, his stock is at all-time high and he chose to take a job writing Toy Story 3. This must be about money is all I'm saying.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:14 PM

comment #28

Rothchild says ...

Is there a literal amount of replies, let's say 78, that are required before you'll stop being a fucker and assuming you know the motivations of a dude you've never met? Maybe it was for the money. But you're a fucker because you think that's the only reason for doing it and you're not going to budge.

Posted by Rothchild at June 13, 2007 2:18 PM

comment #29

Rothchild says ...

You don't know what you're talking about. Let's say he was just looking to make money. He could call his agent up and say he's looking for studio rewrite gigs where he gets paid by the week. He'd make an astronomical amount of money for a tenth of the work he'd have to do on Toy Story 3. Then he could still keep his indie cred.

That's what all these guys do. Scott fucking Frank wrote almost every line of dialogue in Night at the Fucking Museum.

Posted by Rothchild at June 13, 2007 2:20 PM

comment #30

Noah says ...

You're a fucker for being so childish. It's a matter of opinion. I tried to reply to you with my reasoning behind it and you call me a fucker. We're having a disagreement, but you resort to name-calling. I obviously don't know his motivations, but I am making a judgment call based on the information I have amassed in my years of being a fan of watching films. Have a great day.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:22 PM

comment #31

Noah says ...

You're losing your mind, dude. You're a big-time screenwriter, I'm just some loser on the internet right? Relax.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:23 PM

comment #32

ratskiwatski says ...

Noah, even accounting for taste, there's just not a decent case to be made for Pixar stuff being hack work. These pictures are going to have real staying power even after the visuals seem quaint (and they will) because they are *writerly*. That shit is crafted and worried over like mad, much more so than things that are much more lauded. And in the case of "The Incredibles" and "Cars" come from really interesting personal takes on American culture. Easy paychecks are rare, even for dreck - no way Pixar's one of them.

And to the point of the thread... sheesh, William Hurt... say ten Hail Marys and hope for at least a performance that's interesting and fun in a batshit crazy kind of way, like Lithgow in "Cliffhanger" or - hey! - Nolte in "The Hulk"...

Posted by ratskiwatski at June 13, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #33

Rothchild says ...

"Fucker" is just a funny word. And name-calling is amusing. All I ask is for you to say "it may be about money." That's the thing about words. You're passing judgement on a screenwriter you've never met. You're saying he's a sell out. As if it was a scientific fact.

I'm calling a dude I've never met a "fucker." Which, at the end of the day, is nowhere near as big of a deal. Have a great day.

Posted by Rothchild at June 13, 2007 2:25 PM

comment #34

christian says ...

scott frank wrote the dialogue for NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM? but none of it was funny.

Posted by christian at June 13, 2007 2:32 PM

comment #35

ratskiwatski says ...

BTW, Noah... even though I see totally see where you're coming from (esp. with the Alan Ball example) auto-ascribing rotten motives to people (i.e. reflexively calling someone out as moneygrubbing swine for doing a Pixar gig) tends to piss people off. Unrelaxes them. Make a strong statement? Cool. Own it.

Posted by ratskiwatski at June 13, 2007 2:33 PM

comment #36

ratskiwatski says ...

Christian: re Scott Frank - it's the movie equivalent of Woody Allen's line about his mother being busy putting the chicken through the deflavorizer... Scott Frank's a great writer, but some things are just transcendently flavor-resistant...

Posted by ratskiwatski at June 13, 2007 2:45 PM

comment #37

Noah says ...

How is it a big deal for me to make an assumption about a person involved in making movies? And I'm doing it on a website devoted to talking about movies. All we do here is make assumptions about people and opinions about people. I didn't ever call Michael Ardnt a bad guy. I merely stated that if you call out William Hurt or Eddie Murphy for taking a movie role for a paycheck, then you should call out Michael Arndt too. Whatever you feel about Pixar movies and the Toy Story movies, I think it speaks to Arndt's motivations that he would rather create the next chapter in a world that has already been created than to create a new one. That's it. I'm not a bad guy for making an assumption about a screenwriter and I don't really care if you call me a "fucker" or a "douchebag" or whatever else you want to call me. Just because you have the "inside scoop" doesn't automatically make my opinion invalid.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:46 PM

comment #38

OddDuck says ...

Noah, if you still can't see the difference Toy Story 3 and Norbit, and instead insist on reducing them both to "money jobs", then I don't know what to say to you.

Posted by OddDuck at June 13, 2007 2:56 PM

comment #39

Noah says ...

I guess the ultimate point is: if you can say that William Hurt is taking a paycheck job doing the Hulk sequel, then why can't you say that Arndt is doing the same with Toy Story 3?

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:57 PM

comment #40

Noah says ...

OddDuck,

If you can't see the similarity, then I don't know what to say to you. I made my point, now you make yours.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:58 PM

comment #41

Noah says ...

(And OddDuck, I'm not taking about similarities in terms of the QUALITY of the films. I'm taking about the motivations behind taking the jobs.)

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 2:59 PM

comment #42

OddDuck says ...

When you talk about motivation of the writer or actor in taking on a film, you don't get to simply ignore the quality of the movie, just because you want to. It doesn't work that way. The term "money job" pretty much implies a BAD movie made just for the money, I think most would agree. Whereas if it's a good movie then you can be proud of it knowing that it has value outside of paying for your second vacation home. Don't you get this?!?

Now if you want to argue that "money job" doesn't imply "bad movie", fine whatever. Or if you really think any movie that is "commercial" in nature is a bad movie, that's fine too. But it really seems like you fail to see ANY difference between Eddie Murphy and Michael Arndt's motivation.

And that makes you look retarded.

Note, I didn't call you retarded. Just a douchebag.

Posted by OddDuck at June 13, 2007 3:12 PM

comment #43

Noah says ...

Nobody sets out to make a bad film, so I don't think anybody's motivation is to do so. But bad movies happen even under the best of circumstances, which is why I don't think the quality of the film matters. I think even Eddie Murphy was probably not trying to make a terrible film.

Look, you want to keep name-calling me, go ahead, but I don't think it helps you prove your point. I don't think all "commercial" movies are bad and I don't think that a "money job" implies it's going to be a bad movie. And I think that Eddie Murphy should be ashamed of himself for appearing in Norbit (as well as writing and producing it). And I don't think Arndt will have to be ashamed of himself for writing Toy Story 3.

What I do think is that Arndt has just won an Academy Award, right? And Little Miss Sunshine was a successful film. He could do anything right now and people would look at what he wrote. Instead of taking his best shot, he decided to cash in. And that's fine, I don't care what Michael Arndt does with his life. What I care about is making an assumption that William Hurt (or even Eddir Muphy in Norbit) taking a job in the Hulk sequel is a money job solely because it's a sequel to a comic book film. Couldn't the same thing be said of Michael Arndt for Toy Story 3? That is my point, not that anybody is an idiot or a bad guy for making those decisions. Arndt decided to write the next film in a series of films where the groundwork has already been done and it's easier to do that than to write a brand new script from scratch. I will see Toy Story 3 when it comes out, but I'm disappointed that Arndt didn't write something else original. Am I allowed to express disappointment or does that make me a douchebag too?

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 3:22 PM

comment #44

christian says ...

however, i believe disney was going to send TOY STORY 2 straight to dvd and pixar did not originally want to make TOY STORY 3...

Posted by christian at June 13, 2007 3:27 PM

comment #45

Craig Kennedy says ...

I don't want to put words into Noah's mouth (which of course is a preamble for doing exactly that), but I think he was originally pointing out the essential retardness of Wells' original post and he chose Arndt as an example because it casts Wells in the douchiest light possible...a goal I generally support 100%.

Of course, that ignores the fact Noah keeps trying to defend his example, but this sort of selective thinking allows me to maintain peace and order in my universe so I'm sticking to it.

I'll also agree that "fucker" is an extremely amusing thing to call a complete stranger. "Cock" can be really funny too. For some reason, other words just aren't as funny.

Also, The Incredibles rules.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at June 13, 2007 3:35 PM

comment #46

Terry McCarty says ...

Maybe a cure for all this rumination would be to rent THE KING. Hurt's performance as a Texas minister confronted with his less-than-sterling past is one of his best--and definitely not a "paycheck" role.

Posted by Terry McCarty at June 13, 2007 3:44 PM

comment #47

Terry McCarty says ...

Posted by Terry McCarty at June 13, 2007 3:45 PM

comment #48

jeffmcm says ...

The problem is that Arndt is not qualified to write Toy Story 3. The success of Little Miss Sunshine can be attributed to its directors and cast. On the page, it's a contrived, melodramatic, false piece of work.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 13, 2007 3:49 PM

comment #49

OddDuck says ...

Noah, if you'd made your last post your first there would have been far less of a tussle between you and pretty much everybody here.

Look, I'm right there with you wishing an Oscar winning screenwriter would do something more artistically ambitious as his followup. But there's a world of difference between Michael Arndt "not going for gold" after his Oscar and Murphy making a despicable piece of trash like Norbit. One registers as mild dissapointment whereas the other embodies the worst of hollywood. In between these two extremes lies a world of commercial big budget movies with a great range of quality. Who knows, maybe Hulk will turn out to be a classic comic book movie. I would love that, and hope it turns out that way. Can those be "money jobs"? I guess, maybe. Do I place the artists in those movies in the same ring of hell as Murphy? Uh, no.

Your notion that nobody sets out to make a bad movie - bullshit. Well, not completely. Maybe they don't specifically set out to do so, but I'm sure many go into movie productions knowing full well right from the start that it's going to suck. Do you think any major player on Norbit except perhaps the makeup artist was proud to be on that set? Get real. They all knew what they were making.

Posted by OddDuck at June 13, 2007 3:58 PM

comment #50

Noah says ...

By your rationale then, if Toy Story 3 turns out great then it's not a money job but if it turns out poorly then it is. That's why quality does not really matter because nobody knows how good the movie is going to be until it's in the can. I agree with you that Eddie Murphy making Norbit is probably a worse offense than Arndt writing Toy Story 3, but if Toy Story 3 turns out to be a piece of shit, then what? That's why it's all about the motivation before the movie is made. The motivation for both of them was probably to hope to make a good movie, but mostly it was probably to make some cash. AND THAT'S OKAY! cjkennedy is correct when he says that the larger point I was trying to make is the hypocrisy of Wells calling out Murphy and Hurt while giving Arndt a free pass for doing something similar.

I don't know what the motivations of the people were on the set of Norbit, just like I don't know about Arndt's motivations for writing Toy Story 3. But I can assume and you can assume and we will both have our differing opinions. No hard feelings.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 4:04 PM

comment #51

Noah says ...

Wow, I said 'motivation' a lot.

Posted by Noah at June 13, 2007 4:05 PM

comment #52

MASON says ...

Arndt has been working for Pixar on several pics long before he won his Oscar. So I'm pretty sure someone there thinks he's qualified.

Posted by MASON at June 13, 2007 4:06 PM

comment #53

jeffmcm says ...

Really? No wonder Cars was their worst movie.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 13, 2007 5:30 PM

comment #54

BurmaShave says ...

Show Business. Show BUSINESS. BUSINESS.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 13, 2007 10:20 PM

comment #55

The Winchester says ...

Is Haggis taking on Casino Royale fitting into this discussion of "money jobs"? I'm just curious.

And "fucker" isn't that funny in the written form. Verbally it's brilliant, though. Like "cocksucker".

PS- I thought that noah's first post was a nice dig at Wells. no idea it would create the maelstorm it did.

no DZ chime in?

Posted by The Winchester at June 13, 2007 11:31 PM

comment #56

Dan Revill says ...

I think that both sides of the argument are valid points. And there probably is some truth in saying that Arndt is going to be getting a bigger paycheck for being on Toy Story 3 and that probably was a welcome motivation...but then again, I think probably a lot of screenwriters would love a shot at writing a Toy Story film. It may be easier on the surface, because the world has been created, but I also think that would pose more of a challenge, seeing as how the characters are so beloved. It's not like you can totally revolutionize the world while trying to still make something fun and new for the latest entry.
It also occurs to me that John Lasseter has been pretty hands on when it comes to projects that weren't going to turn out stellar in the beginning. I think at the end of the day, if Arndt's screenplay is trite and not up to the standard of the previous two entries, then there'll be some changes.

And yeah, count me in the camp that doesn't think Arndt is going to hit this one out of the park on his own. I love the first two though, so he's got a lot to live up to.

Posted by Dan Revill at June 14, 2007 1:27 AM

comment #57

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Look at Hurt's roles over the past few years and you get a mixture of top notch ensemble projects (Syriana, The Good Shepherd) and low budget independent films. He has made a grand total of one commercial film in the last decade that can arguably be called a paycheck cashing role (The Village). For the most part, he takes roles because he likes the role or the project. Mr. Brooks is a flawed film, but Hurt took the role because he wanted to work with Costner in this role and their scenes together in the film are enjoyable.

So now, at the age of 57, he gets an opportunity for a good paycheck and decides to take it. And, by the way, Tim Roth is also playing a villain in the film as well. Wow. Let's string him up.

How many more of these roles does Hurt rate to get in the forseeable future. Does the mere fact that he has a few Oscar nominations and always seems to be a classy guy onscreen mean that he should spend the rest of his days chasing two-bit paychecks in marginal indie films?

Take a look at any of our better actors: Pacino, DeNiro, Hackman, Hoffman, Nicholson, etc. etc. As they get in their late middle aged years, there is an increased tendency to take paycheck roles and they are far more in demand than William Hurt is.

Any project with Edward Norton in the lead will not be trash, and, even if it was, the guy has done enough to cut him some slack.

Posted by Silverscreenvideos at June 14, 2007 1:54 AM

comment #58

Rich S. says ...

Hurt had a run in the 80s that was literally breathtaking. Altered States, Body Heat, Eyewitness, The Big Chill, Broadcast News, The Accidental Tourist, Children of a Lesser God and, of course, Kiss of the Spider Woman. He was nearly the equivalent of an unhitable pitcher.

To me, when a man has given that much of himself to his craft, he's earned the right to do pretty much whatever he pleases. Even if the project isn't stellar, I've never seen Hurt embarrass himself. He almost always brings something to the table. (Did you see his bit in TNT's Nightmares and Dreamscapes?) Olivier did Clash of the Titans. Nicholson did Mars Attacks. Brando did Island of Dr. Moreau. Big deal.

Posted by Rich S. at June 14, 2007 5:33 AM

comment #59

Joe Leydon says ...

I'm not quite sure I understand Jeff's logic here. Or, for that matter, the logic of some posters. First off, if we're going to accuse any over-40 actor who does a comic book movie of being a sell-out, then we have to add Marlon Brando (Superman), Michael Caine (Batman Begins), Jack Nicholson (Batman), Patrick McGoohan (The Phantom), Nick Nolte (The Hulk) and scads of others to the list. Also, with all due respect to William Hurt -- who I will always honor for his astounding performnace as Hamlet in a NY stage production of decades ago -- he's picked up more than one easy paycheck along the way in his career. Consider such direct-to-video (in the US, at least) titles as The Contaminated Man, Do Not Disturb and The 4th Floor on his resume. And you know what? I don't begrudge him a penny.

As for scriptwriters picking up easy money -- hey, maybe the guy likes Toy Story movies. And maybe the money he earns from that will help him finance his own films. That's how Scott Frank made The Lookout. And heaven knows John Sayles has been doing uncredited polishes for years and years.

Yoy know, when some people start talking disdainfully about other folks (moveimakers, actors, athletes, whatever) making big money -- I can't help wondering: What the hell is it to you? They're not taking any of the money out of YOUR pocket to put it in his/hers. And, of course, you certainly wouldn't be tempted by a huge pile of jack, right?

Posted by Joe Leydon at June 14, 2007 9:18 AM

comment #60

Terry McCarty says ...

Silverscreenvideos wrote:
Any project with Edward Norton in the lead will not be trash, and, even if it was, the guy has done enough to cut him some slack.

Although DOWN IN THE VALLEY fell apart in the third act, there's enough of merit to recommend it--one of the neglected films of last year.

Posted by Terry McCarty at June 15, 2007 12:44 AM

comment #61