comment #1

Richardson says ...

I would love to see Mike Myers working for a director who will push him a little and make him do some real character work. He's got the chops, he just doesn't push himself.

Here's hoping QT pulls it off. And here's hoping peole stop comparing Myers to Sellers. Myers wants to be Sellers, but has yet to do the character work to back up the claim.

comment #2

Balthazar says ...

A had mixed feelings about the script. It had it strengths, but also some problems -- many of which have been discussed here in detail.

This piece of casting, in particular, is making me even less enthused about this film.

comment #3

Balthazar says ...

Me too, Richardson, but I don't think Tarantino, on this film, is that director.

Myers had hints at something really interesting going with his character in 54. I want to see him try something like that again.

He needs a PTA re-imagining. That's it!

comment #4

Mr. Gittes says ...

There's just not enough inglorious bastards in Inglorious Bastards...in the script.

comment #5

Balthazar says ...

Wait, refresh my memory script-readers. ... Is Fenech the guy who just has one bit scene (which also includes Churchill)? ... Or is he guy who comes into France and gets involved as the centerpiece in the whole extended German-speaking scene in the basement bar (in the film's second half)?

comment #6

Amazing Larry says ...

Wow, I don't think Myers is going to even put THAT much effort into his performance. He's probably just going to do his Scottish thing for the millionth time. It was pretty funny way back in AXE MURDERER, but enough is enough, man.

My pick for the Fenech role: Eddie Izzard after a weekend bender.

Oh, and the Fenech name has to be a call-out to the amazing Edwige Fenech, right? If you're not familiar, go to Netflix (when it's shipping again) and slap everything she's done to the top of your queue. If she doesn't make you Ernest Borgnine, I'll eat this trucker cap.

comment #7

Glenn Kenny says ...

@Amazing Larry: Ditto to your thoughts on Edwige Fenech.

That said, paying homage to her in this particular manner is jaw-droppingly lame.

comment #8

btwnproductions says ...

I suspect male viewers have celebrated her in this way before. I would not expect anyone to Borgnine over, say, Greer Garson or Norma Shearer.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

Myers absolutely does not have the chops. He's strummed the same one note since Wayne's World.

Maybe "an original soundtrack by John Mayer" could be a bigger let-down than this news, but it wouldn't be by much.

comment #10

Richardson says ...

"Me too, Richardson, but I don't think Tarantino, on this film, is that director."

The thing is, on the one hand, even not reading this script, I know what you mean, and I'm not sure either. The idea of Tarantino using Pitt and BJ Novak throws me -- I don't know how I feel about him using current stars or comedy actors...

but, then I think about it, and I really don't think Tarantino has ever gotten a bad performance, save one... and most people disagree with me that Pam Grier is not very good in 'Jackie Brown' (but he looked up to her too much he couldn't accept that she just can't quite carry that movie).

comment #11

corey3rd says ...

has any studio or production company bit on this script? It's been a month.

comment #12

Aris P says ...

Mike Myers and Peter Sellers in the same breath.

Excuse while I pick up the pieces of my brain which just exploded.

comment #13

btwnproductions says ...

It sounds as if Tarantino is going the KELLY'S HEROES route on the casting, mixing-and-matching the likes of Clint Eastwood and Don Rickles. I've never been able to get through KELLY'S HEROES, but it's Tarantino's show.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

I don't get why Meyers is any worse than Hannah or Carradine. At least he can make money without being in a QT movie.

comment #15

Amazing Larry says ...

Maybe it's just me, but it's not that Myers is worse than Hannah or Carradine -- it's that he doesn't need this movie. (For that matter, neither does Pitt.) They're in this strictly for marquee value and to justify an enormous budget, not to bring anything interesting to the table.

Which is a cryin' shame. Because this SHOULD be a down-n-dirty exploitation cheapie with cool and unusual casting, but instead it's going to be umpty-million dollars and have no soul. If any flick needs to be less Bay-and-Ratner and more Bava-and-Corman, it's this one. But the casting so far is underwhelming.

comment #16

insidah says ...

I hope the rumors about Corey Feldman being cast are true. Moviegoers will be behind it 100%. This is the kid who shone in STAND BY ME, THE GOONIES, GREMLINS, THE LOST BOYS...he deserves this break like a mother fucker. He means far more to 80s sentimentalists than Pam Grier was to 70s nostalgics.

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

insidah: What about Lost Boys II?

comment #18

PoisonSkin says ...

fuck. hire dane cook before this boring little cocksucker.

comment #19

/3rtfu11 says ...

[but, then I think about it, and I really don't think Tarantino has ever gotten a bad performance, save one... and most people disagree with me that Pam Grier is not very good in 'Jackie Brown' (but he looked up to her too much he couldn't accept that she just can't quite carry that movie).]

You're not the only one. Her line reading of "Shut your raggady ass up and sit the fuck down." is the summation of her whole performance.

comment #20

BurmaShave says ...

corey3rd, I thought Universal got behind this weeks ago.

comment #21

PoisonSkin says ...

I just hope he doesn't put himself in it. he cannot act

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Actually, I thought it was Michael Keaton who was weak in that film.

comment #23

Terry McCarty says ...

btwnproductionw wrote:
I would not expect anyone to Borgnine over, say, Greer Garson or Norma Shearer.

Shearer was a bit more sensual pre-Code. And from remembering Mickey Rooney's second autobiography, she was apparently a great lover.

comment #24

Aladdin Sane says ...

Myers is by all accounts too much of a control freak to submit himself to a PTA re-imagining. But it'd be nice to see.

As for Jackie Brown, I think it's Tarantino's most mature work. It may not be as rewatchable as Pulp Fiction but it's an excellent film. And I know I'm in the minority on this, but I don't give a damn.

comment #25

LFF says ...

you are all insane if you think pam grier wasn't good in jackie brown. Yes, it was written for her, but her performance is so spot on, I can't imagine a different actress in that role.
That character code switches with her speech, & her body language depending on who she interacts with, she has strength and vulnerability in equal measure, and the entire movie she is attacked like people taking shots at goalie who masterfully knocks them back. If you watch carefully, you see how she gradually lets her guard down with Forster even though she is aware of the risk of trusting someone who has fallen in love with her.
Grier is _perfect_ in that movie.

comment #26

swordandpen says ...

I think the casting of Eli Roth is more troubling than Myers.

comment #27

Mgmax says ...

I don't know about perfect, but there's certainly a real life thing about Grier that transcends some technical weaknesses in her performance. I think the film is less than perfect, too, but even so, it's one of the great middle-aged romances and the ending is heartbreaking-- albeit too subtle for audiences.

Actually, who sucked in that movie was... DeNiro.

And Norma Shearer is a stone cold fox in Lubitsch's The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg. Watch TCM for it.

comment #28

actionman says ...

Having worked with Feldman on The Two Corey's, I can easily state that he doesn't deserve shit. He's a whining little douche bag.

I wonder who the cinematographer will be on Inglorious? I hope it's Bob Richardson.

comment #29

Richardson says ...

"but there's certainly a real life thing about Grier that transcends some technical weaknesses in her performance."

This I can accept. "Perfect", I can't.

"Actually, who sucked in that movie was... DeNiro."

This I couldn't disagree more. I think this is the best performance he's given post-Goodfellas. He's so fascinating in the movie because there are so many parts where he does absolutely nothing but listen, and I can't take my eyes off him.

comment #30

Richardson says ...

"As for Jackie Brown, I think it's Tarantino's most mature work. It may not be as rewatchable as Pulp Fiction but it's an excellent film."

I totally agree with all this (I would love to see what else could even be mentioned in the same breath, maturity-wise, from QT). If Grier could carry the film, it would be his masterpiece. I'd like to think that, with an actress in the lead role, it could've made more money and driven him on to further maturity, rather than failing and leading him back down into himself.

comment #31

Richardson says ...

"If you watch carefully, you see how she gradually lets her guard down with Forster even though she is aware of the risk of trusting someone who has fallen in love with her."

You don't need to explain the beats to me as written. They're really, really obvious -- you don't have to watch very carefully (though thanks so much for condescending -- if I don't like her, I must be stupid, thanks).

The problem is that, as you say, you can see her acting the whole time. In my mind, that's a bad performance. (and that's putting aside lines like the one cited above; I do agree that's her worst delivery in the movie, though I don't think it's fair to cite that as a representative sample.) A good performance is one in which the actor does *not* seem to be acting at all, like (hopefully we can all agree) Robert Forster in 'Jackie Brown'.

comment #32

corey3rd says ...

saw the notice that Universal was negotiating for it, but that was two weeks ago. and after Paramount bailed on Harvey's split of the grosses.

do have to wonder if the Tropic Drizzle underperformance will make them rethink the break and budget on a war film that can be seen as a comedy.

comment #33

Bocephus says ...

Please please please no Eddie Izzard. After Across the Universe, I never want to see him again.

And Mike Meyers is no Peter Sellers, but Tarantino should be able to cut through the ego and milk a decent performance out of him.

comment #34

berkguru says ...

The casting on this movie blows. BJ Novak from the Office? Eli Roth (WTF)? Why cant he go with no-names?

But if Brad Pitt can summon some of his work in the Legend of the Falls war scenes it may kick ass. But it wont have the same serious tone so Pitt will come off like a buffoon.

comment #35

actionman says ...

To be fair, BJ Novak kills on The Office. He's a very funny guy. Not necessarily who I think for a big-budget war movie spoof but someone of quality nonetheless.

Eli Roth, however, is a COMPLETE waste of everyone's time. The guy is a schadrule.

comment #36

Edward says ...

We can always hope the acting bug will bite Roth and he'll give up directing.

comment #37

corey3rd says ...

Eli Roth and Tarantino were the worst actors of the year for their Grindhouse roles. These two couldn't star in snuff films cause bullets can't kill wood.

comment #38

/3rtfu11 says ...

[LFF says ...
I can't imagine a different actress in that role.]
Phylicia Rashad

comment #39

Balthazar says ...

This film is going to be one of the biggest "tone" challenges of all time. ... What will this film's tone be? Comedy? Quirky QT drama? Homage to WW2 films of the 1970s? Will it be full of wink, wink in-jokes? When you're dealing with a WW2 film that includes Jews, brutal violence and many real-life characters, including Hitler, you better have a damn clear vision of what your tone is going to be, and you better make sure all of your actors, across the board, fit in with that tone and vision. ... The casting so far makes me question whether QT truly knows what direction he's going with this film, or whether it's just going to be one big lark -- the gory "Ocean's 11" of WW2 films

comment #40

MilkMan says ...

De Niro was great in Jackie Brown.

Tarantino can coax a great performance out of even the grainiest of turds, viz. Travolta in Pulp Fiction, a performative level he has not even come close to since. I'm sure that assclown Myers will just shut up and do what he's told for the first time since he was bagging groceries in Toronto.

Pitt is a horrible choice for Raines. I know that's a moot point to make, but I just wanted to make it, because Pitt exudes absolutely NO AUTHORITY whatsoever. He was also ridiculously cast in Jesse James. No man would be afraid of someone who looked and acted like Brad Pitt, who has always come across to me like a professional beach volleyball player.

I'd prefer Thomas Jane. Or Josh Lucas. I really like Josh Lucas. I don't know why, but I do. I even think Dermot Mulroney would be better than Pitt, based on his perf in Zodiac.

But I know, I know: those guys aren't stars. Pitt is one of the biggest in the world. Equals money. Foreign distribution. Yah, yah.

I also veto Novak. Guy looks like a commercial actor, an Arby's pitchman, the dude in the new Nissan whose driving through San Francisco if SF was a giant pinball machine. I don't get it.

But I'm sure it will turn out fine.

comment #41

Balthazar says ...

Interesting that there's still no rumblings/leaks on the Lansa character.

That's the pivotal casting decision at this point.

comment #42

Balthazar says ...

Err, that's "Landa"

comment #43

DavidF says ...

If nothing else, the casting is looking interesting.

I happen to believe Mike Myers is very talented but has settle for not challenging himself since at least The Spy Who Shagged Me. I think precisely what he needs is something totally different and a strong director...I'm thinking this miiiiiiight be it. Jeff may be right he'll act a bit like Sellers but hopefully QT can pitch it so it still works in its own way...

I've read 1/2 the script so far and, as others have mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a lot of the Bastards just yet. Maybe that will soon change.

Is Aldo also supposed to be Jewish? I think I said on an earlier thread that casting Brad Pitt as Jewish would certainly be an interesting call.

I agree, however, that Landa is probably going to be the juciest role. I guess there won't be anything for Eddie Murphy?

comment #44

Mgmax says ...

"The problem is that, as you say, you can see her acting the whole time. In my mind, that's a bad performance."

I think you're missing the point, but hey, if it didn't work for you, it didn't. Somewhat wooden, yet iconic, mature female cast as tough, but conscious of time's fleeting passage, mature female; who she is transcends how good she is at acting who she is-- like Muhammad Ali playing himself in The Greatest.

comment #45

corey3rd says ...

DeNiro's role in Jackie Brown was earmarked for Stallone. When Sly backed down, DeNiro was the next choice. Ultimately you're seeing DeNiro playing Stallone in those scenes.

comment #46

Richardson says ...

Max - I do get it, and I want you to know, I think yours is the best and most interesting defense of her performance I've ever heard.

I have two responses.

1 - it's all well and good to say that, but the same thing could be said about Forster -- that his performance is rooted in who Robert Forster is [Tarantino is great at that sort of stunt casting]. But Forster also delivers on a basic level, which, to my mind, is a requisite before getting into deeper levels.

2 - the thing that you're talking about tends to work best when everybody in the cast is on the same level. I haven't seen "The Greatest" but I know, in general, the best scenes in those sorts of movies are the ones in which *nobody* is a professional actor, and the worst scenes tend to be the ones where the presence has to act opposite an actual actor -- either the actor tries to talk down to the presence, or the presence tries to step up their acting. It is a difficult thing to overcome.

So, Grier works well with Forster, and horribly with Jackson. But there are also parts where I don't believe that she (Pam Grier) understands the plan that Jackie Brown has concocted, which is a pretty fatal flaw.

comment #47

LFF says ...

-->"You don't need to explain the beats to me as written. They're really, really obvious -- you don't have to watch very carefully (though thanks so much for condescending -- if I don't like her, I must be stupid, thanks)."

Its not just the beats, that's her character. I'm sorry if you think that's condescending to point that out, but saying she gave a bad performance, and didn't carry the movie seems to be a fundamental mis-reading. You have a right to your opinion, but I disagree with it, clearly.

"The problem is that, as you say, you can see her acting the whole time. In my mind, that's a bad performance. (and that's putting aside lines like the one cited above; I do agree that's her worst delivery in the movie, though I don't think it's fair to cite that as a representative sample.) A good performance is one in which the actor does *not* seem to be acting at all."

Someone playing the character that way would be playing a different character, not Jackie Brown.
That would be an entirely different movie. (and not a better one). Her scheme depends on, (and to an extent the person that she is) depends on her having to project the perception of the person that the other person thinks she is. That's her defense, how she plays the others. And yes the baggage of "Pam Grier" is present, but to my opinion the persona reinforces the character. recursion. To criticize it for not being a daniel day lewis style embodiment, is the equivalent of saying coke isn't pepsi.

comment #48

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Bobby didn't suck. It was QT who sucked for miscasting him.

Richardson: DeNiro's fascinating as a younger Tommy Chong, but that's about it. Forster is great as a stiff W.A.S.P. detective who listens to some Motown, but
he needs more substance. And if Jackie Brown was mature, then those idiots could pull off a heist without letting their egos get in the way.

Milk: Travolta just played some random stoner with a gun. I know that's a little more varied than his teen idol years, where he played a greaser who knew showtunes and a proto-emo disco king, but that's not exactly what you call acting.

comment #49

Richardson says ...

"I'm sorry if you think that's condescending to point that out"

It comes off as condescending to just summarize things that happen on-camera, because it seems as if you're saying that the only reason that I think she's bad is that I didn't understand anything that happened.

"but saying she gave a bad performance, and didn't carry the movie seems to be a fundamental mis-reading."

I mean this sincerely -- I can't decide if this sentence is idiotic, or the most brilliant trump card that can be played in an on-line nerd film chat. Because, really, it's a completely valid argument -- it's fair to assume that Tarantino intended for hers to be a good performance, and from everything I've read he certainly seems to believe it is. So thinking that she gives a bad performance is, in a certain way, misreading the director's intent. But it's idiotic for you to set up your opinion as the "fact" and any other opinion as a misreading of the fact.

But now you're making me think too hard. All I meant was, minute to minute, I rarely believe Pam Grier's performance in 'Jackie Brown'. When she's supposed to be scared, she comes off as a person pretending to be scared. When she's supposed to be pretending to be scared, she comes off as a person pretending to be a person pretending to be scared. I don't believe her masterminding a plan, I don't believe her as a stewardess beaten down by life, I don't believe her outsmarting Keaton, I barely believe her outsmarting Jackson (and that's mainly because Jackson does a great job playing a dumb guy who thinks he's a genius), and I don't see any consistency in her character -- even the sort of consistency where she adapts herself to different people; I agree with you, that idea's there, but I disagree with you that she performs that idea in a convincing (or even entertaining) way.

But I do love her stuff with Forster. For me, he gets most of the credit for why the movie feels mature.

comment #50

Richardson says ...

"And if Jackie Brown was mature, then those idiots could pull off a heist without letting their egos get in the way."

That's the smartest stupidest thing you've ever said. It almost makes sense, and it only misunderstands *one* basic concept, which is a big step up for you! You usually misunderstand several!

But, of course, the idea that a movie can only be mature if every character in it is intelligent is fatally flawed and cosmically stupid.

comment #51

Richardson says ...

I realized just after I hit post...

The closest thing to a "heist" in 'Jackie Brown' goes *entirely* according to plan. Nobody's ego interferes with the plan. And Jackie is the only person who plans it, and isn't really an "idiot". What the hell are you even talking about DZ? I take back what I said about that sentence being less stupid than par.

comment #52

Richardson says ...

There's a story on AICN that Samm Levine from 'Freaks and Geeks' got cast. In the talkback, somebody made the following joke, which I think was pretty funny:
"This has clusterfuck written all over it, only spelled "culsterfack". "

Well, I thought it was funny.

comment #53

LFF says ...

"All I meant was, minute to minute, I rarely believe Pam
Grier's performance in 'Jackie Brown'."

...and what else can I say? I find it absolutely believable. I completely disagree with your assessment.

final consensus: opinions on Grier in Jackie Brown range from poor to perfect, depending on who you talk to.

and we can all move on with our lives.

comment #54

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: No, that was a double-cross. The heist was something else entirely.