comment #1

Spartan Tell says ...

Is it my imagination or are career assassin protagonists now more overused than serial killer threats?

comment #2

JD says ...

For some reason, hit man is the go-to profession for sympathetic criminal characters these days. I guess this is because most capitalists identify with the idea of anonymously doing harm to people to make or save money. It doesn't feel as icky as actually knowing the people you do harm to.

comment #3

mat says ...

I wonder how they could have fit high-powered rifles, scopes and silencers into Local Hero.

comment #4

corey3rd says ...

isn't Clooney a corporate hitman in Up in the Air? he's repeating himself

comment #5

Jesse Perry says ...

It sounds more like a riff on Assassination Tango to me. I guess the point is, it doesn't sound very original.

comment #6

Eloi Manning says ...

It sounds like Clooney wanted to spend some time in his Italian mansion.

Every choice he makes is so safe these days. They're not bad films, just he never takes risks. Every director he works with is pre-approved.

comment #7

Pynchon8 says ...

How is Anton Corbijn pre-approved?

comment #8

Nick X says ...

Pre-approved? You mean... first-class? Seems to me Clooney makes some of the best/most interesting choices of any leading man today.

comment #9

Ryansi51 says ...

yeah seriously, pre-approved is a pretty ridiculous statement to apply to clooney, especially with MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS coming out right now, in basically Heslov's first big directing gig.

that's a safe choice?

stop hating just because he has a lakeside villa in italy.

comment #10

JD says ...

Yeah, Clooney should be applauded for working with good directors. He could just as easily (and more profitably) go the Nicolas Cage route.

comment #11

Mark says ...

"Every choice he makes is so safe these days. They're not bad films, just he never takes risks."

Silliest comment on the board this week. Corbijn, Heslov, Gilroy. Who the hell were these people before they met Clooney??? He's the only big star at the moment who actually uses his star power to get movies made that otherwise wouldn't, at least in a mainstream sense. Name someone who is doing it better. He's sort of like a pickier version this decade of the 90's Bruce Willis.

comment #12

Eloi Manning says ...

You know what I mean. Corbijn is coming off the back of a universally praised debut feature. Gilroy was a critical darling for his Bourne scripts. Heslov is Clooney's friend and has been involved in all his stuff like Good Night & Good Luck. Jason Reitman - coming off the back of Juno, etc. Then he has his usual buddies Soderbergh and the Coens who are highbrow superstars.

What I mean is that they're all people critics are guaranteed to like. Next up he's going to work with Alexander Payne. They're all good choices because you know you're going to get a decent film out of them, but goddamn if they aren't a bit dull sometimes.

LexG has it absolutely right regarding Clooney. He needs to work with Tony Scott or someone, break out of this cycle of respectable but ultimately sometimes dull choices. Johnny Depp combines them both pretty well - the highbrow and the fun. Not that I want to see Clooney as Willy Wonka anytime soon, but I'd love to see him as some bastard in a Todd Phillips comedy or something risky.

comment #13

TulseLuper says ...

"He could just as easily (and more profitably) go the Nicolas Cage route."

Yeah, remember when Nic Cage used to work with the best in the business? I miss those days (though I can't wait for Bad Lieutenant). Clooney is one of the good guys. He will make Ocean's 13 just so he can get a film like Michael Clayton off the ground (Not my favorite film of all-time, but still, not exactly a safe choice.)

comment #14

Mark says ...

i don't know what you mean. Soderbergh was dead when Clooney first worked with him, and the Coen flicks had never made money before Clooney, so it's not like those were initially safe choices. Gaghan had never directed a flim before. And then he launched himself as well. Of course all the people had good credentials, but no A-lister comes close to launching fresh directorial blood like Clooney.

comment #15

Eloi Manning says ...

"Soderbergh was dead when Clooney first worked with him, and the Coen flicks had never made money before Clooney, so it's not like those were initially safe choices."

You're right - at the time they weren't safe choices, just as Three Kings wasn't. And that's why even now those three movies are right up there as Clooney's best. But instead of following his early days of working with riskier talent he's going back to the same people or choosing people who are guaranteed to draw the NY Times/NPR crowd. Gaghan was Soderbergh's buddy from Traffic and Syriana was basically Traffic 2, so that doesn't really count as a risky choice.

And when I say risky I mean artistically. You're guaranteed to have an alright time at a Clooney film, which is all well and good, but at the same time you're unlikely to feel like you've just seen something fresh or shocking.

I'm not complaining that he makes good films with good people. I just wish he'd branch out a bit and have more fun.

comment #16

Eloi Manning says ...

And shit on Cage all you want, but before he went mental he was at least doing some higher quality cheese. Face/Off and Con Air were great. Wouldn't you love to see Clooney in some badass Bruckheimer barnstormer?

comment #17

longrunner says ...

^Er, noooo.

comment #18

Pynchon8 says ...

So, by your logic he should work with either first time directors or directors who are coming off a poorly reviewed movie?

Clooney can take some calculated risks but he isn't going to be picking people off the street.

comment #19

Eloi Manning says ...

"So, by your logic he should work with either first time directors or directors who are coming off a poorly reviewed movie?"

No, obviously not. Tony Scott for example is neither of those things. Look at Tom Cruise - granted he was a bigger action star than Clooney has ever been, but he's worked with as diverse a bunch of directors as anyone. Not all people from the milquetoast clique that Clooney picks from. Even Damon worked with the Farrelly brothers and Terry Gilliam.

comment #20

Pynchon8 says ...

Robert Rodriguez
Himself-more than once
Soderbergh-more than once
Malick
Corbijn
David O. Russel
Grant Heslov
Wolfgang Petersen
Wes Anderson
Jason Reitman
Tony Gilroy

Most actors would kill for a quarter of that lineup. Tony Scott? C'mon. Clooney kinda swore-off Scott type movies after The Peacemaker and Batman.

comment #21

Eloi Manning says ...

"Most actors would kill for a quarter of that lineup. Tony Scott? C'mon. Clooney kinda swore-off Scott type movies after The Peacemaker and Batman."

I wish he hadn't.

Fuck, wouldn't you love to see Clooney all bearded up commanding an army of 100,000 CGI extras in some epic swords and sandal flick? Instead of relaxing in a comfortable chair sipping a martini?

comment #22

Ryansi51 says ...

dude, Eloi, you're so wrong its hard to imagine why you're still trying to save face.

TONY SCOTT!??!
BRUCKHEIMER "barnburner"

WTF? and you're the one giving him crap for playing it safe?

Do you even know your nose from your asshole??

comment #23

Ryansi51 says ...

"Fuck, wouldn't you love to see Clooney all bearded up commanding an army of 100,000 CGI extras in some epic swords and sandal flick?"

NO. EVER. why would you?

comment #24

Ryansi51 says ...

BURN AFTER READING

was he sipping cocktails in that one?

MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS

not really james bond either.

comment #25

Eloi Manning says ...

"NO. EVER. why would you?"

Because it would be fun?

Jesus Christ. Russell Crowe knows how to balance his prestige projects with some grimy-ass blockbusting.

comment #26

jesse says ...

I actually see what Eloi Manning is talking about even though I don't agree one hundred percent. For awhile, it seemed like Clooney was just alternating between Soderbergh and the Coens (and I understand that as they're wonderful directors and I'm a big fan of long-term star/director collaborations). And a lot of his recent movies, especially those directed by himself or his screenwriter friends, have played a little like imitations of the types of movies that the Coens (Leatherheads, Men Who Stare at Goats) or Soderbergh (Michael Clayton, Syriana) might do. They're often interesting and worthwhile films, but they're not always the most galvanizing, risky, high-reward works of art (that is, they're like those Soderbergh and Coen movies, but not as great).

That said, Jason Reitman and Wes Anderson and Alexander Payne and the director of Control are all excellent choices, and don't really fall into the imitation-Coen/imitation-Soderbergh category. They're really pretty much in the vein of the guys Cruise has sought out, just not quite as BIG as Spielberg or Kubrick. But De Palma, Cameron Crowe, P.T. Anderson... sort of similar path. Clooney just doesn't have the action-movie component that Cruise dabbles in. But that's fine: I don't want to see Clooney in some Bruckheimer barnstormer, as EM puts it. One of the best things about him is how sophisticated and adult he is (even when going goofy for the Coens), and those Bruckheimer movies at their best are trashy goofs. Which is fine; Nic Cage and Johnny Depp make it work because they're wildly inventive performers. Clooney is more of a dependable, sophisticated leading man. He's not a live-wire. He's a movie star who, semi-paradoxically, wouldn't necessarily fit into the high-gloss Bruckheimer universe, which is kind of great.

comment #27

Eloi Manning says ...

At least jesse understands. Thanks.

Where is LexG when you need him?

comment #28

DeeZee says ...

Get Smart 2, er, Date Night trailer.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2010/Date-Night/trailer.php
Oh, and Harrison Ford decides to Brendan Fraser's wife and family this time.
http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2010/Extraordinary-Measures/trailer.php

comment #29

M. Hulot says ...

Mark said, "Coen flicks had never made money before Clooney". Not true.

Though every movie from Blood Simple up to, and including, The Big Lebowski, didn't make much money in the states, they certainly did well over seas.

And not only did each of them make their money back, every single one of them was profitable. (except for Hudsucker)

Sure, they were not blockbusters, but they all made money for their investors. And that is why they are still able to make the films they do. They always finish on time and under budget (which are are always quite low, comparably speaking), so their profit margin is often greater than most.

comment #30

longrunner says ...

'Fuck, wouldn't you love to see Clooney all bearded up commanding an army of 100,000 CGI extras in some epic swords and sandal flick? Instead of relaxing in a comfortable chair sipping a martini'

Again: noooo.

jeez

comment #31

lehigh says ...

I think this nonsense has been batted down pretty well.

But, I appreciate that Clooney, like Matt Damon, tries to do movies that are good. He's got a lot of power, and makes great choices. Who else, other than Damon, is doing that?

Why should we want to see him "balance" out his career with more shit? As stated above, we have good actors like Johnny Depp, Denzel Washington, and Russell Crowe who are all too happy to churn out crap for the one good movie they do every three years.

Why hate on someone who's doing it right?

comment #32

iamjoe says ...

Unbelievable that anyone can think of ripping on Clooney for making GOOD movies with REAL talent. He more than paid his dues before ER even; he knows how the industry work and uses that to make GOOD work. I'm glad to see anything he has his hands on; even if its light storywise, its QUALITY.

comment #33

Eloi Manning says ...

Christ, you're a sensitive bunch. All I said was that I wanted him to get out of his comfort zone a little bit.

comment #34

longrunner says ...

Idiotic.

comment #35

Eloi Manning says ...

Fuck off.

comment #36

the400blows says ...

I agree with Eloi Manning. This is a sensitive bunch and George Clooney is not challenging himself that much as an actor, considering he can take any role that he desires. Let's see--during the 80s and 90s, Daniel Day-Lewis did A ROOM WITH A VIEW, MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE, THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, MY LEFT FOOT, THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER, THE CRUCIBLE, THE BOXER. Now let's see what Clooney has done: OUT OF SIGHT, THREE KINGS, O BROHTER WHERE ART THOU, PERFECT STORM OCEAN MOVIES, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, SYRIANA, MICHAL CLAYTON, BURN AFTER READING. You tell me who challenged themselves more as an actor and who is taking the easy way out. But in all fairness--lets face it. Clooney is not that great of an actor. Not as good as Day-Lewis anyway. So I can't blame him that much for not challenging himself.

comment #37

nemo says ...

"Fuck, wouldn't you love to see Clooney all bearded up commanding an army of 100,000 CGI extras in some epic swords and sandal flick?"

That's like complaining about how Cary Grant didn't extend himself by doing more John Wayne and Victor Mature type roles.

comment #38

Pynchon8 says ...

Much as I like Daniel Day Lewis, what does he do besides intense? Much the same, Clooney is charming, Cruise is cocky, Tom Hanks is schlubby, and Denzel has big dentures. Clooney would've been laughed out the theater if he tried to be Daniel Plainview

comment #39

Ryansi51 says ...

Pynchon, NINE doesn't look to be "intense"

but really, actors can make choices to do a variety of roles, but for the most part there is still that inherent "persona." But at least Clooney picks interesting and most of all good choices with each new film. it will never be said that he took a paycheck role, ever.

comment #40

frankbooth says ...

"Fuck, wouldn't you love to see Clooney all bearded up commanding an army of 100,000 CGI extras in some epic swords and sandal flick? "

Totally. Then I wanna hear him as the voice of a hang-gliding CGI hamster, and after that he could play nanny to a bunch of rowdy kids who would hit him in the balls before they all learned the meaning of love and respect by fighting international terrorists together. And then maybe something with kung-fu vampires vs parkour werewolves in the future which he would play their sexy 2,000 year-old king.

You're either a sly devil or a true Eloi, Eloi.

comment #41

LexG says ...

I have to defend and back up Eloi on this, since it's (as he acknowledged) an argument I've made time and again. I think some of you are taking him too literally-- No, it doesn't HAVE to be Clooney in 300 2 or PIRATES 4 or MAN ON FIRE 2.

BUT let's put it this way: Clooney is essentially "our" 00s version of Redford. Or Beatty. I'm sure it's a comparison that would flatter Clooney, him being a huge fan of '70s film.

And that's cool. I love Beatty and Redford, as I'm sure most cineastes do... but they were smooth operators, big man on campus types that had better taste and directors than, say, Ryan O'Neal, but presented that same smooth, WASPish, everything-goes-right-for-this-guy suave quality. They weren't Method, they weren't really possessed lunatics with the soul of intense raging bull, like, say, Nicholson or De Niro or Keitel (or Dern or Hopper.)

And all that's fine. It's a matter of preference; They're all great, they're all legendary, and there's nothing wrong with Clooney operating more in that Cary Grant/Redford arena. Yes, he'd get laughed off the screen as Plainview.

But, man, mix it up. It does seem to be a filmography that increasingly mirrors Beatty's... but Beatty's output was SO measured, so Beverly Hills, so "smart" that it doesn't always have the disreputable kick of, say, Jack or De Niro or Pacino's '70s work.

Pitt's got a "Fight Club" or a "12 Monkeys," Damon's got "Bourne," Norton's got a SPIKE LEE MASTERPIECE. Clooney's got Redford-esque white bread all the way. And, YES, I know the COENS are the GRAND MASTERS to all film board types, but in my opinion? Clooney's kind of wrong for the Coens. He wants to do this throwback mugging shtick, and it comes off as trying too hard when Clooney does it. Compare GC in INTOLERABLE CRUELTY, mugging up the works, to Cage's effortless weirdness as H.I. in "Raising Arizona."

Denzel, for example, is a smooth operator and not necessarily a rage-case Method lunatic, but he does visceral (some would say too many) movies that charge up an audience. Again, it's all a matter of taste, but Clooney's choices run more to Ken Turan-style propriety, movies for Caucasian tastemeisters who want to sit in the back row of the theater feeling smarter about themselves.

The guy needs to throw in some down-n-dirty disrepute or some electro-charged intensity now and again to break up all the thesis-paper good taste and arch removed "wackiness."

comment #42

Gordon27 says ...

"Look at Tom Cruise - granted he was a bigger action star than Clooney has ever been, but he's worked with as diverse a bunch of directors as anyone."

You know, I at least halfway agree with you, but Cruise is a horrible example. The directors Cruise works with are exclusively A-list directors, at least as far back as his signing on to do 'Rain Man' when it was a Spielberg film (Levinson was up-and-coming, not quite A-list yet). If you're going to argue that the Coen brothers and Soderbergh are safe choices ('Solaris' was a safe choice? 'Burn After Reading' was a safe choice?), then who on Cruise's list *doesn't* qualify as safe?

comment #43

arturobandini2 says ...

I'm with Eloi and 400Blows, too. If you just compare Clooney's career to the dramatic dares female co-stars like Tilda Swinton and Nicole Kidman have taken, he's a total pussy. On the other hand, there's something to be said for knowing the limits of your talent. I've always enjoyed his performances, and actually thought he had great moments in Solaris, but I'd never go out of my way to see him act. I imagine he'd be insufferable on stage, as would most American stars of his generation.

comment #44

the400blows says ...

Daniel DayLewis was intense in A ROOM WITH A VIEW and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE?

comment #45

bluefugue says ...

Heh, he was wonderfully foppish in A Room With A View.

Age of Innocence he was kind of intense, but in an understated/bottled-up way. Anyway, neither of those characters is remotely similar to his Daniel Plainview or his Bill the Butcher. (Interesting that although Plainview and Bill are both violent power-mongering bastards, Bill is infinitely more likeable.) He's got a fair amount of range and makes particularly good use of his vocal instrument, varying it much more than most actors these days do. Plainview is all about the voice, of course. Sure, he borrowed it from John Huston, but it worked.

comment #46

Eloi Manning says ...

I'm glad at least a few people chimed in on my side in the end.

I'm not a "hater" like some moron said. I just feel like one of our top movie stars would benefit from stretching himself a bit. And that includes gourmet popcorn films.

Do I want Clooney in 2012? Fuck no. But I think badly of Russell Crowe for starring in "trash" (as some moron suggested above) like Gladiator and Master & Commander? Of course I fucking don't.

Years and years ago, when I read Coming Attractions, Clooney was linked to some swords and sandals epic that seemed like a perfect fit at the time. It's not like he'd be ruining his legacy if he just cut loose and had fun once in a while.

There's nothing he could do that'd be more embarrassing than the frequent flyer/hotel card comparison scene in Up In The Air. Talk about smuggery, jesus.

comment #47

Uncle Milty says ...

Eloi,

What makes you think he's not having fun when he does the Ocean's movies? The Coen brother films? Leatherheads?

I don't want him to become the next Bruce Willis or Nicolas Cage. I doubt he has any interest in doing a swords and sandals epic, and personally, I think he'd be a bad fit for that kind of film.

The career path he's working has worked out pretty well for him. He's a movie star, gets a movie star's wage, but he gets to make movies that he cares about.

As for him working for safe directors. Nothing could be further from the truth. He's worked with a lot of first and second time directors without proven track records.

comment #48

COCO says ...

George does as he wants, he gets what he wants, plays the game both inside and outside of the box, lives in Italy, has sexy girlfriends.....am I missing something?....his projects make up a fun mix of try and succeed....and has a ball doing all of it....he lives my dream.

comment #49

LexG says ...

COCO, agreed, sure....

but would you rather have FIGHT CLUB on your resume, or LEATHERHEADS?

That's all we're saying. Clooney doesn't bring the hardcore disreputable exciting grungy wicked shit.

comment #50

Uncle Milty says ...

Lex,

FIrst of all, was Clooney offered Fight Club? There aren't that many hardcore, exciting, grungy wicked movies being made on the level of Fight Club.

He did do From Dusk Till Dawn. He also did Three Kings. I think both of those are gritty, and exciting.

I'd want Leatherheads on my resume if it had been a success. It missed the mark but it wasn't a safe movie. None of the films he has directed have been safe.

comment #51

Gordon27 says ...

"but would you rather have FIGHT CLUB on your resume, or LEATHERHEADS?"

The comparison creates the implication that 'Leatherheads' is the edgiest thing Clooney has done, and that Pitt has done nothing like 'Leatherheads', neither of which is remotely true. I can't think of a Clooney film I wouldn't rather have on my resume than 'Troy' or 'Mr. and Mrs. Smith' or 'The Mexican' or 'Meet Joe Black' or 'Benjamin Button' or 'Spy Game' or 'Ocean's 12'.

Oh, wait...

Anyway, I think Clooney takes more chances as a director than as an actor -- even 'Leatherheads', yes, trying to direct a '30's style farce is a challenge. He failed at it, but he tried.

The reason I wouldn't want to see Clooney in a sword and sandals epic is that he projects modernity so perfectly. He's only done even the recent past a handful of times; 'Thin Red Line' was a cameo (and he was bad) and the others are all farcical comedies where he doesn't need to seem like a real person at all, let alone specific to a time. He's playing the acting style of the '30's.

I think it could be said