The Hot Blog

Or they went with Goode because he played the exact same role in the exact same movie with the exact same release date six years ago, in "Chasing Liberty."

Good gave a great performance in "Match Point" and was almost unrecognizible in the "Lookout". And the best performance in Watchmen was by the guy who did "The Night Owl". Freaking amazing.

Goode*, jeez.

Until today I actually thought Vin Diesel was in The Tooth Fairy -- guess The Pacifier is still lodged too firmly in my consciousness

Matthew Goode's career will sail along pleasantly, but I can't imagine he'll become a huge star. That facial hair, however, certainly tried its hardest to bring him down.

Hey, what happened to ubiquitous early-00s leading man Matthew DAVIS?

Legally Blonde, Tigerland, Blue Crush, Below... Then he disappeared and turned up in some bad TV and, of all things, a DTV Steven Seagal flick.

How does THAT happen?

Lex, that is a question that has intrigued me also: how does an actor simply slip away? They are perfectly competent in performing, are easy on the eye and provide enjoyable company for the duration of their time on screen. And then, foof, they're gone. Two examples of this from the 90s: Julia Ormond and Chris O'Donnell. Ormond was the classy English rose who had screen presence, was easy on the eye and pleasant in interview. However, she seemed a little bit distant or dare I say it, cold. O'Donnell was a very nice charming guy whom a young lady could bring home to mother and Gran would be oh, so pleased. Neither Ormond nor O'Donnell did anything wrong per se but then along came Kate Winslet and Matt Damon and audiences suddenly realized that this is what they really wanted. Winslet was everything Ormond was, but more... and warmer. And feistier. Matt had a bigger, more explosive smile than O'Donnell and wow, did that excite the ladies who went to Good Will Hunting. He was also more virile, and had a hint of danger... but not in a dark way because he exposed his very vulnerable side in that movie.

I don't know who came along to take our affections away from Matthew Davis, but maybe that is what happened. Colin Farrell? Maybe I'm saying that because they were in Tigerland together. Heath Ledger? Jake? I dunno.

As I understand it, O'Donnell came down with a case of "Family" - he just decided that he didn't want to continue the hectic pace of the Batman and Robin era, and he'd just get a spot or two a year to keep his hand in.

Re: Tooth Fairy casting

I was amazed a couple of years back when Wild Hogs didn't feature Tim Allen in the TV Spots. I thought it was a terrible choice. Then it goes on to make a boatload of money. Maybe targeted marketing is a better choice.

Maybe all these movies that list the entire second rate cast should rethink their approach.

Have you seen "The Tooth Fairy" yet? I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but why would you market a movie based on those two people, especially if they aren't in the movie for the majority of the time? The advantage would be that you might draw additional people into the theater based on their participation in the film, but you would probably decrease word of mouth, as those same people told all of their 'same-age' friends: "That movie sucked, and Crystal and Judd were barely in it."

I think the Hollywood studios actually learned a lesson when they marketed "Executive Decision" as a Steven Seagal movie, even though he died and was gone in the first ten minutes. "I came here to see Steven Seagal kick some ass, and now I'm stuck with...Kurt Russell....?" That's like going to see the new 'Die Hard' movie, having Willis die in the first ten minutes, and be replaced by Justin Long in the lead role.

One of the Marketing 101 rules is that you 'sell the customer the product, in as much of a positive way as you can, without leaving them any reason to be dissatisfied.' Selling that movie based on Crystal and Judd seems disingenuous, and lets be honest-was anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, going to see that movie, based on the fact that Crystal and Judd were in it?

It's funny, I was thinking a similar thing about Goode last week while re watching Watchmen. I keep going back and forth, but I think Snyder made a mistake by not having a "name" actor in the cast. I think the most natural role for a big name would have been Ozymandis. For me, Goode just didn't bring enough weight to the role, and it really leaves me feeling that it was a missed opportunity.
I can't decide if Tom Cruise in full on arrogant mode would have been perfect or distracting. I think his price tag and the weird place he was in in terms of his "coolness" probably didn't warrant the risk.
Could the right name have brought the BO from the low to the mid 100s in domestic box office? How about award consideration?

It's not an uncommon thing, DP. TV spots routinely skip over notable co-stars for the sake of those 30 precious seconds (why flash 2-4 extra names when you can use that time to show another gag or action beat?). I'm more surprised when trailers do that. Maybe it's a contractual thing, but it seems like certain trailers are obliged not to bill anyone other than the main star, no matter how impressive the supporting cast is (think the Inception trailers). In fact, for me, it's also a positive sign when the trailers give billing to more than just the obvious star (ie - billing Jennifer Fox AND Amanda Seyfried in the Jennifer's Body ads). The egregious example of the former right now is the embarrassing Alice in Wonderland campaign, where Disney seems desperate to sell the film as a Johnny Depp Mad Hatter vehicle that happens to feature some other random Lewis Carroll characters. I know it's not the movie's fault, but the Depp above-all approach is turning me off big time.

The funniest thing about "Chasing Liberty" was how noticeably better Goode was compared to his co-star. He has real presence in that pic and was a hoot in the junket. Figured he'd be everywhere after that and "Match Point."

The really funny thing about Matthew Goode was his attitude during the Watchmen interviews. He knew that the fans were pissed about him, and he was smug and smarmy and dismissive about it. The problem, though, is that you can only get away with that attitude if the performance backs it up, and Goode sucked big time in Watchmen. He was easily the weakest link and the movie could have gone to bigger things if they'd cast a villain with any screen presence whatsoever.

It's like the neighborhood twelve-year old jackass saying "Hey dickheads, watch me do this backflip on my bicycle," and then he ends up breaking his leg.

Goode brought an effete aloofness and detachment to Ozymandias that suited the character more than gravitas would have.

And Sharon Stone isn't taking a step down by doing this part on Law & Order. It's just not a step up or forward either unless your criteria happens to be "Look! I'm alive and available!".

"Hey, what happened to ubiquitous early-00s leading man Matthew DAVIS?"

I don't know what happened to Davis, but while I was working TIFF with a PR company a few years ago, I heard a story about another ubiquitous early 00's leading man who was doing heroin in the bathroom when he was supposed to be doing a junket. I'm not saying that the same thing happened to Davis, but I guess behind-the-scenes shenanigans can hinder careers, even if any given star hasn't had a number of bombs under his or her belt and the public hasn't found out about it.

Good observation on Ozymandias, Hallick. But I think MDOC has a point as well. Perhaps "weight" isn't the right word, but Ozy should have been someone that was believable as a social rock star, smartest man in the world, most agile/fit, whatever. The actor playing him should have been effortlessly charismatic and captivating, while maintaining that detachment you were talking about.

If I'm not mistaken Jude Law was practically begging to play this role, and while he may not have been perfect, I think he would have been better than Goode, and more believable.

^ As long as they gave him a hairpiece.

Wait, Matthew Goode plays the villain in Watchmen? I thought Ozymandias was one of the main Watchmen?

You have my apologies if you really didn't know that, Krazy Eyes, but to be fair the statute of limitations on spoilers expires about a month after home video release.

SPOILER WARNING for Watchmen.
.
.
.
And Krazy Eye's unfortunate spoiler is the exact reason why you couldn't have a major star as Ozymandias. If you're watching a mystery concerning a bunch of retired superheroes, and the one would-be superhero with the least amount of screentime is played by Tom Cruise (or anyone more famous than Patrick Wilson and Billy Crudup), do you think anyone would have been surprised by the reveal? Yes, us nerds who already read the story and knew what happened wouldn't have cared, but the Watchmen movie was theoretically supposed to be a genuine mystery for those who hadn't read the book.

Really though, was it that much of a mystery to anyone who didn't know the book? Process of elimination, unless you assume the movie is gonna suddenly bring in a new character for the finale. Everyone else was either dead or investigating.

"As long as they gave him a hairpiece..."

Funny you say that; "Watchmen" has been running nonstop on two different HBO services all day, and the FRIGHT WIG Goode is wearing in this is the most obvious piece since "Weather Man"-era Cage. Look for it especially in the final confrontation at his lair; It looks like someone playing David Bowie in a 12:54am SNL skit where they half-assed the hair.

What is with that, anyway? Sam Worthington's wig in the flashback scenes of "Avatar" looks pretty bogus too -- the telltale sign is how it lays in the back. How come "movie magic" can create other planets and species, but a "visionary" like Snyder or Cameron can't spot a bad wig?

I wasn't that familiar with Watchmen and finding out the identity of the villain wasn't a real shock. Not that I necessarily thought it was him, but I was like sure, that's about right. Too bad the guy was such a goober I didn't buy it. They did need a star.

Pope, Chris O'Donnell is back in a big way. He's starring on the hottest new TV series this year, NCIS: LOS ANGELES.

Not mentioning stars is nothing new. The trailer for WANTED named none of the cast, even though two were Oscar winners and one is still major Tabloid fodder.

I'm not actually suggesting that advertising Crystal and Judd would improve box office. Only that there was a time, not long ago, that they were in the position of The Rock.

If you had, say, Zach Galifianakis in your movie, a marketer would probably do what Youth In Revolt is doing... pretending he has a major role in the film to draw Hangover interest. In a spot I saw today, it was his name and Cera's spoken by the announcer. Complete scam.

But now, Judd is taking roles left over by Carla Gugino and Crystal isn't even getting the kind of play Marty Short - who never had a box office career like Crystal's - got in Santa Clause 3.

Cad - There may not have been an announcer saying the name or a title card, but that Wanted trailer was ALL about Ms Jolie. And as I recall, you got your look at aand a taste of the voice of Morgan Freeman too. That's a style choice, not a show of disinterest in selling Jolie going wild with guns in a movie. And Salt look like Wanted had sex with Bourne.

Martin Short was kinda surging on the success of Jiminy Glick, though (the TV show, not the movie that tanked). If Crystal were to do an HBO or Comedy Central series that was well-received, he'd probably be able to be a villain opposite Tim Allen as well.

Yeah, Crystal clearly made a choice when he decided to work on his stage show/books. And Santa Clause 3 isn't really that good of an example.

For me (back when networks actually showed theatrical movies in primetime) the biggest sign that an actor had become a star was when they received star billing for an older movie that they were barely in when said movie ran on network TV. Like after Pulp Fiction hit, you'd have commercials for Patriot Games that blared 'Harrison Ford and Samuel L. Jackson in... Patriot Games'. Or, after Speed, you'd have commercials for Demolition Man that billed Stallone, Sandra Bullock, and then Wesley Snipes.

Re- Watchmen. I'm not saying that it was a particularly challenging mystery, but in theory it was supposed to be a who-dunnit and having a big star in a random supporting role would have been an obvious giveaway. Just like in any crime procedural, where you have two random actors and then Dylan Baker or Tom Berenger as the third suspect (gosh I hope WB's marketing department didn't spoil the villain of Inception by noting that Tom Berenger is in it).

"There may not have been an announcer saying the name or a title card, but that Wanted trailer was ALL about Ms Jolie. And as I recall, you got your look at aand a taste of the voice of Morgan Freeman too. That's a style choice, not a show of disinterest in selling Jolie going wild with guns in a movie."

This assumes that everyone in the audience knows what Jolie looks like. My father would occasionally ask me who someone is (when I was visiting and we were watching TV), and when I told him, he'd reply, "THAT'S him?" Believe me, he's far from alone on lack of face recognition. Bottom line: you got a star, mention his/her name. Takes exactly one second and can make a shitload of difference.

It assumes that everyone who is remotely considering seeing Wanted not only knows who Jolie is, but has had repeated fantasies about her keeping his blood in a vial around her neck.

Cadavra, at least in Jolies's case - those who don't know what Jolie look like probaly wouldn't care that she's in the film anyway.

"This assumes that everyone in the audience knows what Jolie looks like."

What are the odds that ANYONE in their target audience didn't know who she was?

JOLIE POWER.

I stand by my statements. So there.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: