I also saw Miami Vice on Monday night, and it was pretty dreadful. I wanted to like it because it's a beautifully shot film, but...it's not good. I actually had some of the same issues with it as I had with PotC:DMC in that the plot is only workable if you assume from the outset that everyone involved is very, very, very stupid (except for Gong Li, whose only weakness is wanting to have lots and lots of sex with Colin Farrell, for which I really can't blame her). Colin Farrell is overacting in a bad way, and Jaime Foxx seems to just be playing himself. It's a toss-up which was the better choice. Gong Li is the exception in the cast, mostly because she's Gong Li, and is therefore awesome. She's flinty and tough and smart and her scenes with Colin Farrell are unbelieveably hot. Those two should be naked onscreen together more often, mrowr.

As I said, it's visually stunning -- the action sequences are gorgeously shot. Unfortunately, it's kind of the same gorgeously shot action sequence over and over and over, and so by the nonclimactic third act, I was too bored to care anymore.

So glad to know...the trailer had me a little tempted. I'll wait for it to show on cable.

I can think of one actor who does this (Clooney); I doubt there are more than half a dozen who could.

Really? I can think of an awful lot of actors who made their directoral debut at the helm of a multi-million dollar movies. Often, though not always, starring themselves. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that seems like a remarkable coincidence.

It is a good point, that you can't not-see the bad performance as easily as you can avoid a vanity project.

From way back:

It's frustrating, because I feel like he could be the next Kubrick, and instead he's gonna wind up as the next Spielberg

Really? When I think of Kubrick, I think of sophisticated intellectualism (and other less flattering things); when I think of Shyamalan, I think of empty-headedness.

Colin Farrell is overacting in a bad way

Does he still look perpetually constipated? I'd assumed it was an acting choice in The New World before I saw him as himself, face clouded with the pain of the backed-up, in the dvd extras.

I remember a review of LotR:FotR that mentioned in a tangent that the reviewer thought that Viggo would have made an incredible Lt. John Dunbar in Dances with Wolves (apparently, Viggo's good friends with Michael Blake, the screenwriter), but Costner wouldn't have gotten the green light for the movie without agreeing to star in it as well as direct.

Really? I can think of an awful lot of actors who made their directoral debut at the helm of a multi-million dollar movies. Often, though not always, starring themselves. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that seems like a remarkable coincidence.

Undoubtedly there are a lot of actor-directors, but I still only can think of one where it seems a clear case of the studio backing a vanity project to get him to act in their movies. (ETA: currently; I think Kevin Costner may be in that category in the past) It seems to me that there would be very few because there are very few actors where the studio can toss them a couple dozen millions in order to make a guaranteed blockbuster with them later. I don't think Clint Eastwood is being given vanity projects because he's a big box office draw, I know Mel Gibson wasn't, nor is Favreau or Tucci or Braff or whoever.

Which is not to say that those people can't get small investors, just that they're not pressuring a studio to back a project with the promise of another blockbuster later.

ETA2: Maybe Tom Hanks with That Thing You Do!

When I think of Kubrick, I think of sophisticated intellectualism (and other less flattering things); when I think of Shyamalan, I think of empty-headedness.

Well, that's the "turning out to be Spielberg" part... I associate the three because of their visual precision and control. Just on a technical level. It's not about their intelligence or depth or anything else.

they're not pressuring a studio to back a project with the promise of another blockbuster later.

Oh, wait, maybe I misunderstood what you were objecting to? Or maybe I'm just confused generally. I do remember that in exchange for doing Ghostbusters, Bill Murray got to make Razor's Edge (which he didn't direct, but he did star & co-write). Those kinds of deals don't require that someone be such a huge star that their name alone can guarantee a blockbuster. It's when X star in Y project is a potential blockbuster that you get tit-for-tat deals; in general I think that kind of arrangement is less common. So if that specific idea is what you were objecting to, sorry if I confused the issue.

I think it's much more common that the actor directs and also stars. And because they star, the movie pays for itself. Or so they hope. I could swear that much is still true for Eastwood, at least sometimes. Didn't he have to be in Million Dollar Baby to get it made? I could swear I've seen something like about one of his recent-ish movies. Anyway, I think all I'm saying is, whichever variation, it's still using your star power to get a directing job.

Movie image quiz. God, I suck. 8, but I feel so close on at least four more.