Is Michael Caine the new Christopher Walken?

Maybe, because there seem to be celebrity impressions of him coming left and right. Here (courtesy of Devin Faraci's new gig, the Alamo Drafthouse's Badass Digest), Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon square off to see whose Michael Caine impression is Michael-Cainier. And here, Peter Serafinowicz (a.k.a. the guy Edgar Wright calls when he needs to fill an asshole-supporting-character role; see, e.g., his turns as "Duane," Tim's girlfriend-stealing ex-friend in Spaced, and "Pete," Shaun and Ed's "prick" roommate in Shaun of the Dead) does a pretty mean impression as well as part of his "Acting Masterclass" bit on The Peter Serafinowicz Show. (Of course, that isn't his only great impression there; his Kevin Spacey, Ralph Fiennes, Robert De Niro, and Al Pacino are also spot-on. Regarding his Pacino, I'm impressed by anyone who goes for the Michael-Corleone-style quiet-Pacino over later-career loud-Pacino (the best of which is, of course, Bill Hader's—he's got some grief with his moolah!). So peruse those to your heart's content, gentle reader.) If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then Michael Caine must have the most kissed ass in British entertainment.

From Slough to Bag End

Though we don't post a lot on film news, the Tolkien-nerd in me cries out that I give notice to the fact that several roles in The Hobbit have officially been cast. In addition to several Dwarves to be played by actors whose names I don't recognize (yet), Martin Freeman—Tim Canterbury (a.k.a. the "Jim" role) on the original Office, Arthur Dent in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and Dr. Watson on the BBC series Sherlock—has been cast as the title Halfling, the reluctant burglar, he that walks unseen, the ring-winner and luckwearer, Bilbo Baggins, Esquire. It's a choice that's been kicked around for years now, mostly because it's a very good one; Freeman is great at playing the everyman (especially the English kind), with a sense of being ordinary, compliant, and a bit put-upon, but with a potential for unexpected (seemingly uncharacteristic) courage when the need arises. The only other actor I can think of who might be equally good for the role is Tom Hollander, who starred in last year's excellent In the Loop. So Freeman's casting is some welcome, if not exactly shocking, news.

This is a production that's needed some good news for a while. Peter Jackson had been devoping it with Guillermo del Toro for some time, with the latter planning to direct it for MGM as two films—one covering the events of the novel itself (or at least most of it), and the other covering the six decades or so between that and Bilbo's eleventy-first birthday party with which The Lord of the Rings begins. But MGM's mounting financial problems (leading to the studio's upcoming bankruptcy) delayed work so long that del Toro left in May to pursue other projects. (While two del Toro Hobbit films was a tantalizing prospect, the fact that his next project will be his long-awaited adaptation of Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness certainly makes his loss to Tolkiendom much easier to bear.) Though Jackson has now assumed the director's chair for both films, he has faced legal disputes over the rights with the Tolkien estate and New Line, the studio behind his Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as labor disputes with actors' unions that may force Jackson not to film in New Zealand.

Given that most of the news about the Hobbit adaptation has been negative for some time, the fact that it's apparently soldiering on regardless is encouraging and gives me hope that we may soon enjoy once again the wonder and spectacle that Jackson first brought us nine years ago.

P.S. — If Jackson has any sense, he'll find a way to incorporate this into the films. Forget Howard Shore; the main theme for the score is already written!

In Which I Come to a Poor, Helpless Movie Star's Defense...Sort Of

First, let me reiterate that it's not as though I think that Russell Crowe is the greatest actor of his generation and how dare you doubt his thespian genius or anything like that. His performances are serviceable and often engaging, but he's never moved me to tears or anything. I only said something because I thought it was kind of strange and interesting that you expressed such a strong opinion about him as an actor—not just a particular performance, but his performances in general. I honestly can't think of a dramatic actor whom I dislike in general—though there are particular performances I dislike, and plenty of actors I don't especially like or dislike, and there are certainly non-dramatic actors whom I generally avoid (Rob Schneider, the majority of Adam Sandler, just about all of Eddie Murphy since 1990, etc.)—so I was intrigued by your dislike, especially considering that he's a pretty well respected actor.

Your dislike of Crowe seems to stem from two sources: He plays a "tough guy" when he shouldn't, and his performances are often overrated. As for the second criticism, there's not really much to discuss since it's simply a subjective matter of opinion; either you think his performances warrant the praise they've received, or you don't. For my part, I don't think he deserved to win an Oscar for Gladiator (I probably would've gone with Bardem in Before Night Falls that year), so that performance at least was overrated in my opinion. (That is, assuming that an Oscar win is definitive evidence of how the public "rates" a particular actor.) Of the films you mentioned, I haven't seen The Insider, and I wouldn't call his performance in American Gangster overrated; I thought he did a good job of playing down his natural charm and establishing a dichotomous contrast between his character and Denzel's, though he didn't blow me away or anything.

As for your first criticism, I don't think I've seen enough of his "non-tough-guy" films to be able to say that he lets inappropriate tough-guy elements seep into his performances there. The only example of this you gave was State of Play, which I haven't seen; from what I can tell, his characters in The Insider, Body of Lies, and A Good Year don't seem like tough guys, but I haven't seen those either, so again I can't say. I have seen A Beautiful Mind, and, despite its other faults, I can't say he played John Nash as a tough guy at all. I've also seen Master and Commander (though not since it came out, so my memory may be a little rusty), and, in addition to suggesting that you muster the interest to see it, I think it offers an example of a performance by Crowe that's neither "tough-guy" nor "non-tough-guy." His character is certainly very much in control of the people around him and the situations before him (hence the title, I guess), but in the manner of a gentleman-captain in the Royal Navy, not a brutal '50s cop, a Roman gladiator, or the leader of a gang of Old West bandits; he's formidable to be sure, but not what you'd call a "tough guy."

I'm sorry if this post seems to be mostly my nitpicking about your criticisms about Crowe rather than a stalwart defense of him on his merits, but, as I said before, I just don't feel that strongly about him one way or the other. My opinion of him is that he's made some good movies (L.A. Confidential, Master and Commander, Gladiator to an extent), some stomach-turning schmaltz (A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, A Good Year), and some respectable but not particularly memorable work that falls somewhere in between (American Gangster, 3:10 to Yuma). Given that you don't like him and I don't really care enough either to agree with you or to defend him, I think we can lay the Great Blogospheric Russell Crowe Debate That Never Was of 2009 to rest.

I hope I don't get hit with a phone for this

So Russell Crowe. You asked about my dislike of the guy and here you go. I see that he is in a movie and, for me, that does not register in the "good" column when deciding whether or not to see it. As for why that is the case, part of it is more instinctual and, I admit, I had not really thought of exactly what it is that bothers me about him. But here is the thing: I'm tired of seeing characters being played as a Russell Crowe version. Either it is just the way he is or it has some sort of need to always be a tough guy, but it seems like he always needs to be a tough-guy version of the character.

Sometimes it works and I will admit there are Russell Crowe movies I have liked -- some quite a bit. L.A. Confidential was a great movie and allowed Crowe to be, well, a hothead tough-guy cop. I think Gladiator is pretty self-explanatory. And 3:10 to Yuma? Tough guy. When he's doing that, I'm fine with it. When he's not playing a tough guy, though, his characters somehow turn into tough guys frequently, like his character in State of Play which diverges strikingly from both the original character and any reporter I ever met.

Then I can't help but note that a number of times either the movie or his performance have been highly overrated. I admit people might disagree with me on some of these, but I would Include movies like The Insider (great movie, but his American accent was distractingly awful among other problems with him in that movie) and American Gangster (both movie and performance were overrated for me). I think my real distance for him might have started with A Beautiful Mind, which initially came off as sweet but watching again was saccharine. And there was the fact that they took what could have been a fascinating story about a truly brilliant man with an incredible story and turned it into a romance by changing the facts. And he went for the full Rain Man in that movie.

I do not refuse to see a movie just because it has Crowe and in fact am quite intrigued by the Ridley Scott-helmed Robin Hood that he is filming. But on the other hand I have no interest in ever seeing Master and Commander or Cinderella Man. My best way to summarize this is that "Russell Crowe movies" do not sound good to me as I find the "starring Russell Crowe" character to be irritating. But if there is a good movie that he is a part of, I do think he often has some talent to bring to the table that I can enjoy. I'm still not sure that makes sense, but that's what I think of Russell Crowe.