comment #1

actionman says ...

Wells, your dismissal of MUNICH and Bana's terrific performance is utterly fucking embarrassing.

comment #2

PerfectTommy says ...

Russell Crowe is a little young (43?) to play the bad guy in 3:10 to Yuma, but, of course, he already took risks like Romper Stomper.

I would agree that the powers that be have decided Bana is not going to doing a romantic comedy with Kate Hudson anytime soon. Shame.

comment #3

transmogrifier says ...

Well, he's right about the sex scene. Terrible.

comment #4

PerfectTommy says ...

Bogart was the best about switching from bad guy to good which made him even better in roles as the reluctant hero in such films as Casablance more convincing. Of course, he always seemed like he was over 45.

comment #5

erniesouchak says ...

Willem Dafoe played nothing but bad guys till "Platoon," and he was terrific in "Streets of Fire" and "To Live & Die in L.A."

comment #6

Ray says ...

Actually, taking the villain role in a Star Trek film is saying to the industry, "I would really prefer it if I never worked in this town again. I give up."

Frankly, I see only positives in an actor taking on a villain role - Hollywood is DYING for more charismatic villains to electrify the moviegoing public the way a Hannibal Lecter - or the upcoming performance by Bardem in No Country For Old Men - have done repeatedly.

Here's a break in your rule, Jeff: young Ben Foster commanding the screen as the villain of 3:10 To Yuma.

www.therecshow.com

comment #7

MilkMan says ...

You Spielbergers are so fucking shrill sometimes. What, to not like a Speilberg movie means, what, exactly? Why is it embarassing? It couldn't be as embarassing as being the type of person who scrapes and sputters to find something good to say about Hook, Always, 1941, The Color Purple, Jurassic Park 2, could it?

comment #8

MilkMan says ...

And that sex scene at the end of Munich is what's embarassing, as it reveals that Speilberg hasn't had a good fuck since the day Amy Irving found out she was going to be the lead in The Fury.

comment #9

jeffmcm says ...

It's a great movie and a misunderstood scenes, and there are completely honorable things to say in praise of each of those movies. Hook - great Williams score. 1941 - great action choreography. Color Purple - widely acclaimed as a classic amongst African Americans. Jurassic Park 2 - funnier and looser than the first. Always - uh....okay, you got me.

comment #10

robbery says ...

Back from the grave - "Munich" jabs!

comment #11

DavidF says ...

I find the entire premise that Bana is a "movie star" in the vein of Nicholson or Harrison Ford somewhat suspect.

Most people don't know Bana even if they saw Ang Lee's "Hulk." He's more of a handsome character actor type, IMHO. Clive Owen is probably more recognizable to Average Joe.

It's good to know that Abrams is at least trying to get some interesting and talented people in this Star Trek reboot which, at this point, sounds like it could be anywhere between riddiculous and brilliant.

Anyway, Russell Crowe played a bad guy in Virtuosity (and WHY is no one excited about the forthcoming reunion of the two leads from that flick??).

All I know is that if any of us get laid tonight (including Wells), it's because of Eric Bana in Munich.

comment #12

Dellamorte says ...

Well, since he can't really cast name actors on the Enterprise, this shows that at least he has a good eye for talent (as he did in M:I:III - shame he didn't know how to sue them, or couldn't, either/or).

Also CHOPPER shows that he could have some fun with this. I would be interested to see this not turn into a superhero thing and have his character not go down like a Godzilla foe, but there's so many ways this could resemble bad TV that I would almost be happy if it resembled good TV. Bottom line is that Bana's the good, but hasn't found a great home stateside, even if he has worked with a number of the best.

comment #13

DavidF says ...

Ray said:
"Actually, taking the villain role in a Star Trek film is saying to the industry, "I would really prefer it if I never worked in this town again. I give up.""

I don't know what that's based on.
Wrath of Khan is probably the best thing Montalban has ever done. That might not sound like such high praise but he is damned good in it.

Chris Lloyd didn't damage his career doing Star Trek III (nor did John Laroquette) and Malcolm McDowell and F Murray Abraham were both mezzo-mezzo career-wise anyway.

On the other hand, I think the probe from Star Trek IV was my server at TGIFridays last week....

comment #14

gruver1 says ...

Ricardo Montalban's villain performance in "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan" was the coolest thing he ever did, in my book. But he was older (62, in fact) when he did it. Thus holding to my general theory.

comment #15

bmcintire says ...

As much as I would like to see Bana play a villain, I'm finding the leaps in your logic a little too far-reaching. He was really the only truly good thing about TROY (a movie that made shitloads overseas, the market that matters for epic actioners). The CGI sequences in HULK were the most deadly awful, scenes which had next to nothing to do with him. I actually enjoyed his [human] performance. And the "bizarre" sex scene in MUNICH has more to do with Spielberg's and Kushner's interpretation than it does anyone onscreen. I thought he was truly amazing in that movie. The real albatross around his neck is LUCKY YOU - a film which no one saw and most wrote off as another rom/com flop, even though it wasn't (that frigging title, for starters!). I doubt it hurt Drew Barrymore (much) and if anyone really stands to sting from that one, it's Curtis Hanson.
If there is an aw-shucks good-guy actor tipping towards 40 whose stock is falling and who needs to look at playing a psychopath, it's your favorite - Matthew McConaghey. His turns in FRAILTY and REIGN OF FIRE probably show the most potential, and knowing that he has two more same-old-shits lined up (GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST and FOOL'S GOLD) means he needs to get on that stat. Of course, you'd be happier to see him disappear, so the point is probably moot.

comment #16

KeithNYC says ...

To attack a film that you dont like ("Munich") by disguising it as an attack on a great performance by Bana (which even most "Munich" detractors would admit) is beneath you. Bana was amazing in that film. Jeff, we all await your apology.

comment #17

OddDuck says ...

In the history of cinema is there a sex scene that is more uninentionally funny and off-target than the one in Munich?

comment #18

rocco says ...

I don't know what's worse...the sex scene in 'Munich' or typekey...seriously.

'Munich' was gripping--absolutely gripping--until the end. Wells and co. went to the extreme to "take it down" he didn't hate the film, just it's unworthy praise. That much seems clear...but dinging the quality of Bana's performance?? That's a bit vexing...

Pitt played a villian in 'Kalifornia'. Spacey played the villain 'Seven'...Colin Farrell played the villian in 'Daredevil'...Joaquin Phoenix in 'Gladiator' etc etc...not sure I agree with your thesis...

comment #19

astrophore says ...

I'm sure Eric Bana's agent would be thrilled to have him mentioned in the same breath as Montalban, Lloyd, Larroquette, McDowell and Abraham.

Glad we're back on the Munich-bashing, too. Can we get Poland to weigh in?

comment #20

Joe Leydon says ...

But remember: Thanks to Eric Bana, the guys in Knocked Up got lucky. Well OK, just one of the guys. But still...

comment #21

Rob says ...

Why do people get so upset about the goddamned sex scene in Munich? Sure, it's a little on-the-nose, but it doesn't really do much damage to an otherwise excellent movie.

Otherwise, Jeff, I gotta say, I had the same thought when I saw that Bana was playing the villain in Star Trek. He is clearly an up-and-comer no more.

comment #22

Ray says ...

When I remarked about Star Trek being a career killer, I was referring to the upcoming Star Trek film, which I think we all know, deep down, will fail utterly. It is a pointless exercise over a dead franchise that the kids no longer support or find interesting.

I agree with you about Montalban for the most part, except that he was pretty damn good in Naked Gun, too.

www.therecshow.com

comment #23

jeffmcm says ...

That I can agree with - since the entire premise of the new Star Trek film is apparently to take all the familiar old characters and make them young and hip, it's an inherently stupid, pandering way to go.

comment #24

christian says ...

In a perfect universe, Montalban would've nabbed a Best Supporting Actor nom for his part. He is THAT good and he knows this is his last chance to tear up the screen and he does.

As fer 1941, the dance sequence alone makes it almost worthwhile. Not to mention the utterly awesome miniature work of Greg Jein.

comment #25

MAGGA says ...

"And that sex scene at the end of Munich is what's embarassing, as it reveals that Speilberg hasn't had a good fuck since the day Amy Irving found out she was going to be the lead in The Fury."

Which makes him an auteur

comment #26

OddDuck says ...

I know this isn't fair, but for me the sex scene in Munich virtually negated all the good stuff that happened before it. That's exaggerating a little, but really, in a movie with a number of chilling, suspenseful, tragic and cinematic-virtuoso moments, the first thing I think of when someone mentions Munich is that ridiculously laughably bad sex scene.

comment #27

Ray says ...

Continuing the Montalban thing ...

Do we know for sure whether that was actually Montalban's real chest on display in Khan? I find it incredible to think that Ricardo looked that good at that age without prosthetics.

www.therecshow.com

comment #28

BurmaShave says ...

Matt Damon in THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY? Anti-hero I guess, which would also be where Clooney as Seth Gecko would fall under. He may be an asshole, but he's not a fucking asshole.

comment #29

ZayTonday says ...

Bana was awesome in Munich AND Hulk... You're trippin, Wells.

comment #30

lawnorder says ...

I don't think the "bad sex scene" in Munich had anything to do with sex on screen or an inept portrayal of it - it was the intercutting of the flashbacks that screwed it up, giving Bana a POV that he couldn't possibly have had. He wasn't present for the Munich killings and yet he's flashing back to those moments, rather than his own state sanctioned revenge killings. If he was going to be haunted by anything, it should have been the blood he personally shed.

comment #31

Gus Petch says ...

Spielberg was just portraying how Israeli men deal with performance issues. They don't have baseball over there, you know.

comment #32

christian says ...

"Do we know for sure whether that was actually Montalban's real chest on display in Khan? "

Yes it was. Ricardo Montalban has said so as well as others involved, including Nick Myers. The guy was healthy.

comment #33

source188 says ...

The very end scene of Munich with Bana's character asking Geoffrey Rush to break bread with him and then refused is one of the most satisfying and profound conclusions of any film of the last decade. This film improves on the vision and approach originated by The Battle of Algiers.

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

There's no reason Bana couldn't 'flash back' to a place he wasn't at. That's narrow thinking. Think of that scene as a statement coming directly from Spielberg's heart. None of those people are real, you know.

Battle of Algiers? I don't see how the approach of the two movies are similar.

comment #35

MDOC says ...

Interesting take on becoming a bad guy but I don't know if that is the story here. The buzz behind the Star Trek casting is that the crew will be all unknowns so Paramount wanted a "name" to be the villain. I don't know if Bana qualifies as a "name". He certainly is not a box office draw. Bana may be a talented actor, but I wouldn't invest in a picture he was headlining. This may ultimately be a good creative decision but it's not going to make one person that wouldn’t ordinarily go to a "Star Trek" picture go to this one.
Maybe they can get Edward Norton for the next one.

comment #36

DavidF says ...

I've fallen behind on the thread.

-I don't get the vibe that they are trying to make the new Star Trek "young and hip." My hope/expectation is that this will be more like the Battlestar Galactica re-boot which takes the good parts of the original and then goes in deeper, unexpected directions.
Right until that show aired it sounded like it was going to SUCK (Starbuck's a girl! The cylons look like people?!) and how wrong we were.

-Funny someone asked about Montalban's chest in Khan since the matter is actually discussed on the DVD commentary track. As said above, it's all Ricardo.

-Wells used the Khan appearance to prove his point about older dudes taking on villain roles except, as we all know, Montalban was reprising a role he'd played when he was 25 years younger (albeit on TV).

-And Joe Leydon missed that I already made the Knocked Up reference but that's okay - it's a great little bit.

-And, as for Munich, I'm with Jeffmcm. There is no reason Bana can't be "flashing back" to the airport attack. Spielberg made the same "mistake" having Private Ryan remembering the D-Day attack. Oh, and James Cameron made the same mistake since Rose kept describing things on the Titanic she never saw. This happens in films ALL THE TIME.

comment #37

OddDuck says ...

The problems with the sex scene in Munich had nothing to do with impossible POV's in flashbacks. No, its problem was that it made me LOL when it should have made me CQOTI (cry quietly on the inside). I was in a big theater when I saw it, and you could tell the vibe - it was awkward laughter at a scene that aims for some kind of catharsis or profundity and achieves neither. The audience just didn't buy it. I think we were all distracted by the sweat flying from Bana's dripping wet hair. Just ludicrous.

comment #38

Joe Leydon says ...

David F: Sorry, I must have passed right over your earlier post. I think my eyes already had begun to glaze over at that point in my following the thread. I have returned, fortified by a couple Monster Low Carb energy drinks.

comment #39

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Back in the 1950's, actors like Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas didn't have any problems switching from good guys to bad from film to film.

Most of the actors cited like Joaquin Phoenix hadn't established themselves when they played villains. Phoenix in particular used his role in Gladiator to gain visibility, and the same thing might well happen to Ben Foster. And frankly, for an actor looking to become a lead, playing a villain, who is a rival alpha male sends a much stronger message than playing a secondary lead role (a guy who is usually some type of loser aka James Franco in the Spiderman movies).

There's nothing wrong with an established star at his peak playing a villain. It certainly hasn't hurt Matt Damon's career that he was in The Departed. However, it sends a subtle psychological message that he may either be not quite there yet or past his prime. Damon didn't have that problem because everyone saw The Departed as more of an ensemble piece than a mano-a-mano with DiCaprio.

However, for actors stuck in a rut, like Bana or Matthew McConnaughey, playing a villain could revitalize a career.

comment #40

trish says ...

To dispute: your theory about leading men not taking villain roles until 45 or older

Matt Damon - Talented Mr. Ripley, The Departed
Mark Wahlberg - Fear
Christian Bale - American Psycho, etc
Joaquin Phoenix - Gladiator
Edward Norton - many roles - can play good and bad
Ryan Gosling - Murder By Numbers

comment #41

trish says ...

To dispute: your theory about leading men not taking villain roles until 45 or older

Matt Damon - Talented Mr. Ripley, The Departed
Mark Wahlberg - Fear
Christian Bale - American Psycho, etc
Joaquin Phoenix - Gladiator
Edward Norton - many roles -
Ryan Gosling - Murder By Numbers

comment #42

Jay T. says ...

What are you smoking? He was exceptional in Munich and that creepy sex scene looks far worse for Spielberg than it does for Bana.

comment #43

T. S. Idiot says ...

"Back in the 1950's, actors like Burt Lancaster, Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas didn't have any problems switching from good guys to bad from film to film."

Ah, the good old days. With the possible exception of G. Clooney, what American star under fifty is actually an adult?

comment #44

Abbey Normal says ...

I actually think the Munich sex scene is one of the best parts of the film. The guy is damaged. What happened in Munich scarred him--real, real bad--and that's one reason why he can't get those images out of his head during the sex. But it's worse than that. He's to the point that he fetishizes what happened... notice how when the athletes get shot in his flashback is right at the orgasmic moment of the sex. It's an indication of how completely this event and the ensuing violence that he's seen and perpetrated has seeped into him. This is how fetishes often get started, from extreme trauma. It's perfectly natural (in an aberrant sort of way) why that would happen.

We should be giving props to spielberg for making such a ballsy, artsy choice, not whining about how it "ruins" it by being "crazy" or "weird." You all sound like the very same mouth-breather rubes Wells is always attacking.

You might not agree with the artistic decision, but don't say it isn't art. It's an ambitious movie, damn it! Cut it some slack and at least try to understand it on its own terms. I guarantee if this had been made by Von Trier or some other European director/provacateur, Wells and others here would have creamed themselves talking about how brave it was to portray it that way.

Oh, and yeah, implying that the scene somehow negates Bana's performance, or that his cred as an actor wasn't enhanced by the film is just insane.

comment #45

KeithNYC says ...

"You might not agree with the artistic decision, but don't say it isn't art. It's an ambitious movie, damn it! Cut it some slack and at least try to understand it on its own terms. I guarantee if this had been made by Von Trier or some other European director/provacateur, Wells and others here would have creamed themselves talking about how brave it was to portray it that way."

Exactly, it was a total Spielberg thing. Imagine if it was a Kubrick film, the scene would have been hailed as risky and genius. I still have mixed feelings about the scene as Bana is made to look like a gay man's fantasy in the scene when there should be nothing sexual about it. Now imagine if Mann had done that same scene, Wells would be all over it.

comment #46

Terry McCarty says ...

Re MilkMan's comment:
Yes, Steven Spielberg's always had a problem with sex scenes or allusions to sex (so does Tim Burton, for that matter).

But has anyone thought about Spielberg's allergy to prostitutes in his recent films (not just MUNICH, but also CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and A.I)?