comment #1

Karsten says ...

He's already taken the role of Terminator... in Oliver Stone's "Bush".

comment #2

Joel says ...

It's actually the FOURTH Terminator movie. Sadly.

comment #3

D.Z. says ...

You mean fourth Terminator film. I'm also wondering what cred was that?

comment #4

Bocephus says ...

It would actually be the fourth Terminator movie, for what it's worth (not much, since there were only two good ones).

I had no idea McG directed We Are Marshall. I was having a conversation with someone last week about how he wished the McG produced TV shows would go away, and I replied "well at least he's staying away from directing movies."

Guess I was wrong. I am almost depressed enough to use a frowny face emoticon, but I can't allow myself to get that worked up about awful movies.

comment #5

Mjs says ...

"You mean fourth Terminator film. I'm also wondering what cred was that?"

Man, you are transparent. But, I'll answer. He had one of the leading roles, and probably the most time on screen, in a film nominated for eight acadmeny awards. He got terrific reviews for his role as a bad guy in American Gangster. And although the film wasn't a hit, or a huge critical fave, his performance in Planet Terror was also well received.

For a guy that hasn't done much of note the last twenty odd years, that's a big fucking year, douchebag.

comment #6

gruver1 says ...

James Cameron's two Terminator movies, Jonathan Mostow's and now this one -- four. Of course. I guess I've always thought of the Cameron film as part 1 and 2 of the same film.

comment #7

scooterzz says ...

i was at that big warner brothers presentation last night and the strangest part was after sitting through an hour long program celebrating the likes of howard hawks, john huston, arthur penn etc. (and talks by richard schickel and warren beatty), we were ushered into a reception in order to schmooze with mcg, nancy sinatra and frank sinatra jr.!!!!!
frankly, the bartender was more interesting to talk to...

comment #8

Sean says ...

"I'm also wondering what cred was that?"

That's because you're a fucking idiot.

comment #9

Sean says ...

"But not the third (technically the fourth) Terminator movie, man."

Even when he's flat wrong, Jeff can't admit he's wrong.

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

"high-toned cred you accumulated last year from Robert Rodriguez"

Wha? I'll grant you Scott and the Coens, but how is a Terminator a "step down" from Planet Terror? Brolin was great in PT, but come on.

If you're reading, Josh, grab the gusto. You'll be seen by more people in the your five minutes of Terminator 4 than the three films Jeffrey mentioned combined. You already have all the "indie cred" you need. Live a little.

comment #11

chicbn872 says ...

Jeff...didn't I read on here once that you liked "We Are Marshall"? Being a Marshall alum, I remember being excited that it passed the Wells Test.

When I first found out that McG was directing the movie based on a tragedy that happened at my school...I cringed...then McConaughey showed up...I vomited.

Turns out, I really like the movie. Sure, I'm completely biased but I think McG pulled in the reins a bit on it.

comment #12

Rich S. says ...

Sorry, that should read "your first five minutes of Terminator 4"

comment #13

va says ...

gruver - I was prepared to give you a pass on your Ledger thing (I agree with you about 85%) - but you thought Terminator 1 and 2 were part of the same film? T1 came out in 1984 - T2 in 1991 - in between, Cameron made Aliens and Abyss - you should have "Pretzel Logic" playing on the home page of this site....jeez that was one of your more stupid remarks - do you sign into typekey as DZ also?

comment #14

brendan says ...

Wells - How about writing the same thing to Christian Bale? He is rumored to play the John Connor role.

comment #15

buckzollo says ...

Wells I admire your willingness to declare your opinion so fiercely. I marvel at the transparency of what you seemingly are offering so selflessly. I wonder curiously at how little pull you must have to not be able to share this directly with Mr. Brolin and then second think it to cheer you for ultimately making your point (and driving traffic.) Maybe he will take your advice maybe not. He had an amazing year and seems deservedly poised to enjoy some rewards, but blogga please you ain't no agent.

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

Sean: "That's because you're a fucking idiot."

At least I'm not stupid enough to star in a role people will forget in a few years. (*cough* Kristanna Loken *cough*)

comment #17

lawnorder says ...

Josh, fuck Terminator 4 - you'll just be a useless cog in a played out franchise. And McG has the worst eye of any director working right now. We are Marshall was pure, overly sentimental shite! Every fucking shot was a huge close-up and McConaughey was fucking awful. Go for the substance. I heard you're being considered for Union Station being directed by Wayne Kramer. That's an incredible script and a really good director. I read it because it rated so high on the most recent Blacklist. I'd like nothing more than to see you act in a 30's gangster saga. If not Union Station, then anything but T-4 or some sellout horror flick.

comment #18

MASON says ...

Bale is the lead and he ain't playing the John Connor role.

And I can't believe I'm writing this, but I actually like the Sarah Conor Chronicles. At least I don't hate it like I thought I would.

Of course, the folks behind that are far more talented than McG.

comment #19

gruver1 says ...

Wells to va: Honestly -- I think of the two Camerons as Part I and Part II. They weren't made as such, but they fit together. In my head, I mean. Do I give a fuck if you agree or disagree or find the linkage specious? Let's see, uhhmm.....no.

comment #20

Noah says ...

D.Z., you mean you're not stupid enough to take a shitload of money to star in a popular franchise film? What was really the downside for Kristanna Loken?

comment #21

rr3333 says ...

I wonder if Wells' were a hot actor that he would turn down the big bucks because McG is directing?

I think not.

comment #22

Jay T. says ...

McG is such a hack he makes Michael Bay look like Alfred Hitchcock...

We Are Marshall was surprisingly disappointing, I remember thinking, and then when the credits rolled and I saw McG it all made sense.

comment #23

jeffmcm says ...

So Wells, I'm curious, how many James Bond movies have there been? And there was just one big Indiana Jones movie, and now it's finally getting a sequel, right?

comment #24

gruver1 says ...

No, asswipe, I don't see the Bond movies as one big thing; ditto the Indiana Jones films. I just see the first two Terminators as linked by the same director, star, lead actress, backstory and plot elements. And therefore, in my head, I see them as parts 1 and 2.

comment #25

Josh Massey says ...

Terminator 3 had balls, and I liked it.

Of course, Mostow is infinitely more talented than McG (Breakdown was terrific, as well).

Oh, and Wells, you're going to absurdly great lengths to cover up a typo. Or is there only one Godfather?

comment #26

Sean says ...

"I just see the first two Terminators as linked by the same director, star, lead actress, backstory and plot elements."

Since Indiana Jones has all of those things also, save one, your rationale boils down to "Linda Hamilton was in both."

Being fair, though, since Linda Hamilton has never done any other movie worth mentioning, I'm almost inclined to give you that one.

comment #27

Sean says ...

"Sean: "That's because you're a fucking idiot."

At least I'm not stupid enough to star in a role people will forget in a few years. (*cough* Kristanna Loken *cough*)"

So, if you were an unknown, you wouldn't take millions of dollars to be in a movie?

That's because you're a fucking idiot.

comment #28

le corbeau says ...

There's the Connery-Terence Young one, the Connery-Guy Hamilton one, the Connery-Lewis Gilbert one, the Lazenby-Peter Hunt one, the Moore-Guy Hamilton one, the Moore-Lewis Gilbert one, the Moore-John Glen one...

comment #29

le corbeau says ...

Three words for Josh Brolin: Robert John Burke.

comment #30

Craptastic says ...

I can't stand McG as much as the next guy but I don't see what the big deal is with Brolin making a popcorn flick like this. It'll definately up his public awareness, he gets to goof off as a Terminator for a few months and then receives a nice paycheck to boot.

The guy has given us more than a few quality performances over the past few years...let him have some fun and get a few more fans. Yeesh.

I'm starting to think that Wells is actually a Phil Hendrie character and we're all getting played.

comment #31

Noah says ...

Mgmax, I think you mean Robert Patrick, who went on to star in the X-Files and has a pretty good career as "the bad guy" or "the emotionally abusive father" in quite a few movies.

comment #32

Craig Kennedy says ...

Don't listen to Wells, Josh. Take the money. We'll be here when it's all over and you make another real movie.

comment #33

Dan Revill says ...

Count me in with the few that doesn't see the downside for Brolin cashing in. If Bale is doing it, then it leads to a slight suspicion that the script will be above average for a McG film. I really don't see what the big deal is - true it's a payday, but there can't be any denying that it'd be fun for any actor to do. Brolin seems to have a pretty level head when it comes to his fame, so I won't be surprised if he seizes this opportunity.

comment #34

thorsen1nk says ...

"Oh, and Wells, you're going to absurdly great lengths to cover up a typo. Or is there only one Godfather?"

Actually for a while in the 1990s you could buy an official "Godfather Saga" which Coppola re-edited Godfathers 1 & 2 into one long, chronologically linear movie which started with young De Niro Vito Corleone, continued with old Brando Vito, and then concluded with souless older Michael running the family. Even though I am a fan of how the flashbacks were paced in GF2, it worked surprisingly well as one gigantic saga--and actually made Fredo's ill-fated boat ride on Lake Tahoe even more powerful.

comment #35

WesGoulet says ...

As a long time reader but first time poster I must say that ol' Jeffrey seems to be becoming more and more of a curmudgeon as of late, so much so I felt inclined to register. Relax, Wells. Your seriousness is reaching near-cataclysmic-Christian-Bale type levels. Although I admire the lengths you'll go to cover-up a typo I much prefer when you vitriol isn't aimed at your readership. "Asswipe"? Come on. If you can't laugh at yourself at least don't stoop to petty AICN-level name calling.

comment #36

Nick Rogers says ...

Maybe Mgmax does mean Robert John Burke ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107978/

comment #37

Craptastic says ...

Well said, Wes. And welcome!

I completely agree. Only a fool would insult his/her audience.

comment #38

lawnorder says ...

Josh can make plenty money doing a quality film rather the third sequel to a franchise that is now playing out as a TV series. How does it benefit Josh to perform in the shadows of Arnold, Robert Patrick and Kristanna Loken? And it's not as if James Cameron is back in the director's chair. It's not even Tony Scott or Andrew Davis. Josh, if you're having any doubts, just take a refresher course of Charlie's Angels 1 and 2. Pretty much any decent male lead can play the freaking Terminator. You just look stoic and kick some ass. I want to see Josh do something like L.A. Confidential or Prince of the City. I'd rather see a feature length version of his character from American Gangster than fucking Terminator 4. They're probably going to go the PG 13 route again and, of course, that will suck just as bad as T-3. Josh has never made the obvious choices in his career and I doubt he will now.

comment #39

Sean says ...

"They're probably going to go the PG 13 route again and, of course, that will suck just as bad as T-3."

While I would certainly disagree with your opinion about the quality of T3 as well, I can definitely state that you are wrong regarding the rating of it. It was rated R, according to the IMDb.

"Josh can make plenty money doing a quality film"

It's funny to me that none of your examples of quality films he could do would give him a big paycheck.

comment #40

le corbeau says ...

Maybe Mgmax does mean Robert John Burke ...

Yeah, maybe he does.

I have nothing against Brolin playing a popcorn role but this one is so identified with one star, it's hard imagine how he can benefit from trying to imitate and top Arnold. Maybe he can be the Daniel Craig of Terminators, who knows....

comment #41

le corbeau says ...

I guess the difference I see between this and Robert Patrick is that part of the reason for casting Brolin is that he looks enough like Schwarzenegger... to seem like an imitator. Patrick was playing a completely different character.

Also, the difference is it's not 1991.

comment #42

T. S. Idiot says ...

In a joint interview with Bardem, perhaps conducted by Poland, don't recall exactly, Brolin poked fun at the Coens for not paying their actors and at Bardem for working with both the Coens and that notorious skinflint Woody Allen. After all he's been through, maybe he thinks he finally deserves a hefty payday. Nothing wrong with that. I'm sure he won't turn into Nic (as long as I get my check I'll do anything) Cage. Leave him alone, Wells. And should you choose to respond, I want to be called Mr. Asswipe.

comment #43

Sean says ...

Urgent message to Daniel Craig: You've got some buzz coming off of 'Munich', and you were great in 'Elizabeth', but for god's sake, don't do 'Casino Royale'! It's from the director of 'No Escape', 'Vertical Limit', and the two 'Zorro' movies, so it can't *possibly* be any good. Any why would you want to take a movie involving an iconic character when you can do a movie that pays you nothing? Why not continue to do great performances that get overshadowed by other great ones?

comment #44

lawnorder says ...

Okay, I confused T3's rating with some other PG-13 sequels to R Rated films - but, Jesus, it sure felt PG-13 to me. Apologies.

comment #45

christian says ...

They call me MISTER ASSWIPE.

comment #46

lawnorder says ...

The big difference is that Craig gets to act as James Bond (especially in Casino Royale) and the Terminator just gives blank looks - and, yeah, the occasional smile - then steps aside for his stunt double. If Cameron, or a better director was at the wheel, I'd say to Josh, maybe, maybe with an eight figure payday, go for it -- but McG ain't that guy. I could name fifty better and available directors (including Michael Bay) before I'd slum it with McG.

comment #47

Craig Kennedy says ...

Was it here or somewhere else I read of an interview Brolin did where he basically admitted that things were looking peachy for him just now but that he knew it could all go away in a heartbeat so he wanted to enjoy it while it lasted. Get it from the gettin' place while the gettin's good.

Grab it by the fistful, I say.

How long was he "that guy from Goonies"?

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

Noah: "What was really the downside for Kristanna Loken?"

Having to slum herself in Bloodrayne, because she couldn't get better parts?

jeffmcm: If you want to be technical, there was also a tv show.

Sean: "You've got some buzz coming off of 'Munich', and you were great in 'Elizabeth', but for god's sake, don't do 'Casino Royale'! It's from the director of 'No Escape', 'Vertical Limit', and the two 'Zorro' movies, so it can't *possibly* be any good."

It wasn't any good, but I think you mean Invasion or Golden Compass, not Casino Royale.

"Any why would you want to take a movie involving an iconic character when you can do a movie that pays you nothing?"

Ask Val Kilmer.

comment #49

Noah says ...

D.Z. you know nothing about the movie industry. Before T3, Kristanna Loken wouldn't have even been able to score a part in Bloodrayne.

Also, Val Kilmer was able to parlay his part in Batman Forever into starting his own franchise of The Saint, which turned out to be a failure. But he was able to become an above the title player because of Batman, he just chose bad parts afterwards. But, I'm an idiot for bothering to try and impart wisdom to you because you will never admit to being wrong.

comment #50

D.Z. says ...

Noah: Before those films, Loken was an up-and-coming model and Kilmer was the next "it" boy after Keanu.

comment #51

BurmaShave says ...

How wrong can one man be?!

comment #52

Noah says ...

D.Z., you're insane. You think Kristanna Loken should've turned down T3 and done what exactly? You think it was a bad career move for an up and coming model to star in a major Hollywood movie when she had nothing on her resume to that point, make hundreds of thousands of dollars and be in a film that is released on 3000 screens in the middle of summer and would put her on magazine covers? Good thing you're not her agent.

Also, Val Kilmer was the "it" boy? He had been around for eleven years before Batman Forever and leapt at the chance for security, hoping it would make him more able to act in the films he cared about. Too bad those films didn't pan out because he's an extraordinarily talented actor.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

Noah: "You think it was a bad career move for an up and coming model to star in a major Hollywood movie when she had nothing on her resume to that point, make hundreds of thousands of dollars and be in a film that is released on 3000 screens in the middle of summer and would put her on magazine covers? Good thing you're not her agent."

Yeah, because it worked so well for Cindy Crawford and Liz Hurley. Oh, wait...!

"Also, Val Kilmer was the "it" boy?"

Yep. He was actually bigger than Pitt at one point.

comment #54

Noah says ...

So you suggest that Kristanna Loken do what then? What should she have done with her career once she turned down T3? What were her other options?

Val Kilmer was never bigger than Brad Pitt, unless you mean in 1986 before anybody knew who Brad Pitt was.

comment #55

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Considering that Val Kilmer's just been announced as Will Arnett's replacement as the "KITT" voice in the new KNIGHT RIDER TV flick, I'd say his ship's just come in:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/35527

comment #56

christian says ...

I can see Brolin quickly typing into his blackberry:

"HE sez T4 bad call. Confer w/ agents. Immediate."

comment #57

lawnorder says ...

Kristanna Loken taking a role in T3 is not the issue - of course, it was a great opportunity for her. Josh Brolin is an established actor and now he's about to become a star. Why fucking waste that on a third sequel film? It's not as if he's interpreting the character for the first time like Johnny Depp in PIRATES. It's been done in the most iconic way. As for Bale - he's obviously got a role that calls for more than just deadpan expressions and preparing the frame for his stunt double. Add all that to a shitty director at the helm and it's an instant pass in my book. And... BATMAN didn't kill Kilmer's career - his reputation as one of the biggest assholes in Hollywood did. Combined with non performing movies.

comment #58

Rich S. says ...

I haven't read the script, but one thing a lot of folks might be overlooking is the fact that maybe Brolin's terminator isn't all grunts and scowls. They've gone that route in three movies (yes THREE movies) and maybe even the stupid machines have figured out that they need to change their strategy.

Don't know if that's the case, but it could be.

comment #59

PerfectTommy says ...

About whether Batman killed Kilmer's career; it didn't do wonders for George Clooney's career, but it sure didn't kill it.

comment #60

rr3333 says ...

2 things killed Kilmer's career:

1) Him being a very difficult guy to work with.

2) (Sorry to sound like Wells' but ...) He Got Fat.

comment #61

btwnproductions says ...

I think providing the voice of the car on the new KNIGHT RIDER TV show, as announced in Variety, is a junker assignment for Kilmer as star. He's no William Daniels.

comment #62

Sean says ...

"About whether Batman killed Kilmer's career; it didn't do wonders for George Clooney's career, but it sure didn't kill it."

Tommy - Clooney disagrees with you; he credits 'Batman & Robin' with giving his career a huge boost (I assume it was because of international distribution).

it's ironic, because he's genuinely terrible in the role, but he has frequently said that, even putting aside all the money he made from it, doing that movie gave him tremendous freedom to make the movies he wanted to make and couldn't have made otherwise.

comment #63

PerfectTommy says ...

Sean - that makes sense. Maybe Brolin should talk to GC.

comment #64

christian says ...

I always thought Clooney would have been a great Batman with a better film. He's the only one of the actors who looks like Bruce Wayne should.

comment #65

T. S. Idiot says ...

Bubba Clinton once said, in reference to his performance in Tombstone, that Kilmer was underrated.

comment #66

Jay T. says ...

Did someone really just compare Martin Campbell to McG? Campbell has made some crap, but nothing on a Charlie's Angels level, and McG has never made anything good, while Campbell has.

comment #67

Sean says ...

"I always thought Clooney would have been a great Batman with a better film."

It's possible; he's very, very bad at playing Schumacher's Batman, though.

"Campbell has made some crap, but nothing on a Charlie's Angels level"

'Vertical Limit' and 'Beyond Borders', I won't accept argument with. I would say 'Goldeneye' is as bad as either 'Angels' movie, but I recognize that movie has defenders. But 'Vertical Limit'? Nosir, that dog won't hunt.

"and McG has never made anything good, while Campbell has"

I never saw "We Are Marshall", but since Jeff's whole point was that it *was* a good movie (and, thus, McG is 1 for 3, better odds than Campbell's), I was taking a director who had done mostly crap but some good work too.

If you want to disagree with 'We Are Marshall' being good, your argument is with Jeff, not with me. I was merely saying that Jeff's whole argument is stone stupid.