April 17, 2009, 9:47 a.m. CST
April 17, 2009, 10 a.m. CST
Is it the Post or a fictiona lpaper Crowe works for?
April 17, 2009, 10:24 a.m. CST
The BBC mini-series is marvellous. Watch it soon, Capone! This film has a lot to live up to.
April 17, 2009, 10:38 a.m. CST
I like him as an actor. I think he did great in Hollywood Land,and proved himself a good director last year, he just gets shit on alot because of the whole Gigli thing.
April 17, 2009, 10:39 a.m. CST
April 17, 2009, 11:07 a.m. CST
The queen bee of the blog side of the paper is Della Frye (Rachel McAdams), who is a terrific writer but a terrible reporter. She values the scoop over getting the facts right the first time, and it drives Cal crazy." Yep, that certainly never happens in the legacy media.
April 17, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST
This was eked out after multiple drop-outs and then dumped in April. Russell Crowe looks like Early Man.
April 17, 2009, 12:15 p.m. CST
It's called the Washington Globe, but the Post is thanked and it is clearly a thinly-veiled Post. On Affleck, i think he gets a hard time. Is he a great actor? No. Does he have a tendency to be a cheeseball? Yes. But while Affleck in lead roles and/or big movies (Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, Sum Of All Fears, Gigli, Jersey Girl, Daredevil, Paycheck) is consistently rubbish he can actually turn in pretty solid performances in smaller films/ensemble movies like this, Hollywoodland, Boiler Room, Chasing Amy, Shakespeare In Love, Good Will Hunting (and by the looks of it Extract). Since Hollywoodland he's been impressing me more and more. Prior to it i had gotten into the habit of dismissing him like so may people.
April 17, 2009, 12:58 p.m. CST
So does Crowe start slugging it out with Rachel McAdams in a captain's outfit like south park? Kidding, that's high praise imo stating this is better than Shattered Glass. Off the top of my head I haven't seen many "journalism" flicks but Shattered Glass was pretty good; every flick I've seen Christensen in his voice seems to break and to me it sounds so off and contrived; but Shattered Glass was really good so even if his voice did break the overall story and his performance along with Peter Skaarsgard (spl?) left more of a favorable impression than his voice cracking. I was gonna see this just cuz Rachel McAdams but now I have some expectations for it since it's being put on a higher pedestal than Shattered Glass.
April 17, 2009, 3:56 p.m. CST
It was my understanding that he got the role days (two weeks or so?) before they started shooting. <p> Or am I imagining that? <p> Regardless, the whole spin of print Vs blogosphere is one I'm intrigued to keep reading about, as the trailers made it look far more formulaic that that. A worthy kind of contribution to weave into an adaption of the original anyway.<p> Zeitgeisty subtexts or no, though, I can't really abide modern day Crowe, in person or on screen. So, I'm afraid the best I can do is a byline on page 37 between regional cow-tipping shenanigans and subjugational porn-lobyist consumer propoganda disguised as home insurance and biscuit advertisements.<p> The DVD player awaits.
April 17, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST
After Hollywoodland and Gone, Baby, Gone, and now *this* I'm hoping he's really back.
April 17, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST
Seriously, Paul Abbott's been one of the most consistently good and inventive screenwriters in television for the last decade or so. Now one of his best works gets cut down and adapted for the big screen by three guys - and they get all the love?
April 17, 2009, 6:34 p.m. CST
you gotta see the original BBC version which is a piece of television beauty. We'll get the same with the remake of EDGE OF DARKNESS - no matter how good the movie turns out to be, it'll have a hard job getting anywhere near the TV original.
April 17, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST
Rachel McAdams and Crowe I knew were gonna be good, but so was affleck. I never saw the trailer, so I was pleasantly surprised to see SPOILER Lock from the Matrix sequels, Bateman from Arrested Development, and Jeff Daniels, who is noticably older so I had to wait til the credits to make sure it was him. Starts off really well and held me and my girl's attention throughout, and had a few twists and turns and ended satisfyingly for us. I'd recommend this to anyone who likes thrillers.
April 17, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST
I dont understand how no one came forward reporting that the girl was pushed into the train. There were people standing all around but it was reported as a suicide. Who cares about the blind spot, there were tons of people around there. Am I missing something?
April 17, 2009, 7:29 p.m. CST
Yeah I thought about that, but I guess you're supposed to think SPOILER Bingham is so good he can just push someone without everyone noticing. And also that we're all so self-involved we won't notice something like a guy pushing a chic into a train like that. Or you can chalk it up as a glaring plothole. Personally I went in expecting an ok film and came out thinking I saw a great film imo. Hopefully it holds up upon future viewings too but at least this initial experience was very great
April 17, 2009, 8:22 p.m. CST
I did get confused at the very end. After the dixie cup scene I started to think I was responsible for the whole cover up.
April 17, 2009, 8:36 p.m. CST
By the looks of it Russell Crowe LOST a few pounds to star in State of Play, after going extra lardy in Body of Lies. the main needs to go for a run. He's been lardy in every movie he's been in since Cinderella Man. Lazy and tubby.
April 17, 2009, 8:45 p.m. CST
Whenever I notice a plot hole or the total ridiculous (see Indy 4) it just bothers me the rest of the way through. On the whole though it was still better than most movies nowadays and it reminded me of a cross between the Pelican Brief and Michael Clayton.
April 17, 2009, 9:17 p.m. CST
And I do yearn for his acceptance by the mainstream, but he is truly just a face. He's not an actor's actor. Just a face. Now, Matt, he has the chops and he never sold out. He picked wisely and didn't pick according to the pay check. Ben failed us for fame and money and don't forget pussy.
April 18, 2009, 12:27 a.m. CST
Just got back, can't say I liked it very much. On one hand, I thought the Blackwater conspiracy was too convoluted by half. Guess what? Here in America these guys wouldn't need spies and murders to achieve their "privatizing national security" objective -- they could do it aboveboard through lobbying and other forms of legalized corruption, the type of things that go on constantly and that papers barely cover anymore. That being said, the post-Dixie Cup twist pretty much subverts entirely the Big BAd Corporate Corruption critique that's come before.<br /><br /> Also, just as I didn't buy Russell Crowe's character at all -- he was like a newsman out of Sesame Street -- I don't buy that the problem with today's media is 25-year-old bloggers not having "good" reporting skills. The problem is the Bob Woodwards, Judy Millers, and other venerable members of the establishment press bending over backwards for access and carrying water for the assholes in power. The NYT didn't blow the no-WMD story because of 25-year-old bloggers. Nor did they hold the NSA warrantless wiretaps story for over a year (an election year!) because of bloggers fulminating online. They did it because they listened to the people in power spew lies, and were either too timid or too lazy to call them on their bullshit.<br /><br /> In other words, the grand poobahs of the establishment media are basically bought and paid for, and they protect their own. That, and all the market pressures and misplaced emphases that David Simon noted in THE WIRE, are the reason newspapers are going under, not the Rachel McAdamses of the world.<br /><br /> As for the dirge for newspapers that closes the film, please. Look, I read several newspapers every morning -- it's part of my job. But you might as well cry over the radio, record player, or telegraph. Technology moves on, and, when you get right down to it, the actual production of a physical paper-and-ink newspaper involves a colossal waste of resources for something that's basically pretty ephemeral.<br /><br /> End of soapboxing. Here's a question: How did army psycho-killer guy ever find out about the little white junkie girl?
April 18, 2009, 1:34 a.m. CST
This is the kind of smart thriller we need more of. The Last King of Scotland was unbelievably good. Kevin McDonald did a great job.
April 18, 2009, 10:02 a.m. CST
I saw that last night on a double bill with State of Play and have a question about it. What was the significance of the park bench? Clive marked it with white chalk, Julia clearly saw the mark later that night...and then it never seemed to come up again. What'd I miss?
April 18, 2009, 10:10 a.m. CST
I got the sense that Julia and Clive forced the latter's being exposed to the Duke so that he'd get busted and fired (luckily, not shot), and thus have no reason to [a] be missed when he disappeared for Rome, Zurich, or wherever they ended up going the next day, and [b] be outed as the leak. (They would assume it came from someone on Wilkinson's side, since Owen's attempt ostensibly failed.)<br /><br /> Once Clive had one copy of the formula, he could've made a second copy at any point during the office party. And now he had an out from the team. So that made sense.<br /><br /> A better question, other than why not just use a camera-phone pic to transmit the document, like Julia ends up doing, is why wouldn't Giamatti et al check to make sure the formula is legit before announcing it at the big conference? If the Swiss/Germans can figure out it's a dud in 5 minutes, so too could have Giamatti's people.<br /><br /> Still, I liked Duplicity better than State of Play, for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post. At least Duplicity had tongue-in-cheek while not making sense.
April 18, 2009, 6:19 p.m. CST
I thought about that too - that's the only glaring weak point. Otherwise pretty tight movie.
April 18, 2009, 10:30 p.m. CST
Russell Crow did not gain weight for role. That is just how he looked when he showed up on set. But it definitely worked for the movie. There were not "multiple drop outs" for creative reasons. There was one. Brad Pitt wanted rewrites and they couldn't rewrite because the writers strike was still on. So he was the only one that dropped out. Edward Norton could not do it due to scheduling conflicts after Brad Pitt's drop out delayed the production. The 3 screenwriters did not work together. You can always tell this on the poster BTW. If they use the word "AND" between writers they did not work together. If they use "&" they did write together. Paul Abbot was an active producer on the film. At a screening in LA, Kevin MacDonald thanked Paul Abbott first and above all others. The movie wasn't dumped in April. Originally, the movie was to be released in November just before the election. But the writer's strike and Brad Pitt drop out moved it back. It was then going to be released in Feb. But because it was getting good scores at screenings they pushed it further to April. It was actually a good weekend for this to open. It's going to end up in second place behind 17 again which probably makes Universal very happy.
April 19, 2009, 7:42 a.m. CST
Was mostly ok, but strangely enough it wasn't as THRILLING as the original BBC series, the film felt more laidback and not so urgent. <p> Nothing to gripe about really ('cept Affleck's strange face, and the mis-casting of Justin Bateman), just that the original was superior, and who wouldn't have expected that?
April 19, 2009, 8:33 a.m. CST
What an utter toolbag!