Parker, Reacher, Hammer: Macho series characters suddenly hot

Reading this, I was wondering if you’d become possessed by the spirit of some dead hack who worked for Variety twenty years ago, Trent.;-) lol

I may see Reacher purely as a goof. I’m sorry, I can’t take that film seriously. I can hardly take the actual books seriously, let alone a 5’6″ Cruise playing Reacher. That makes about as much sense as Justin Bieber playing Parker.

The McGee adaptation looks doubtful as of now. DiCaprio has like 12 films he’s committed to shoot before McGee. And even if he gets around to it I am dubious–the script starts off with Trav on a surfboard, because anyone who’s read a McGee novel knows he LOVES to surf. (In 21 novels he has surfed or mentioned having surfed zero times.)

I’m more optimistic about Parker than any of the others.

The problem with Hollywood today is that there aren’t any real good tough guy actors. Every actor today has to be some pretty boy. Now not every actor has to look like the character. Humphrey Bogart looks nothing like Sam Spade, for example. But they ought to at least be able portray a quality of the character.

For what’s it worth, Statham at least can portray tough. It’s just he’s just short and British, when Parker is tall and American.

The Cruise/Reacher and DiCaprio/McGee combos are another case of Hollywood trying to put square pegs in round holes. And to Matthew’s point, these are two actors more known for being cute and lovable rather than rangy and nasty. The casting of Statham as Parker isn’t all that suprising; for a while now Hollywood has been handing off tough guy roles to Brits and Aussies, and giving the pretty boy roles to American actors. I actually just did a piece on this phenomenon just last week. And it’s here:

http://www.jettisoncocoon.com/2012/10/where-are-all-american-actors.html

Trent: Gibson was born in New York so technically isn’t he an American?

Is not the American male at large less masculine and assertive than, say, the male of even only 30 years ago, let alone the 50’s and 60’s, which were the decades that produced Eastwood, Marvin and Bronson’s first films?

Take a look around you and takes notes. Do the males of today remind you very much of your fathers/grandfathers generations? Some maybe, but I’d guess the majority seem much softer, weaker and prone to bitch and whine about any little thing. To say nothing of the dye-jobs/highlights, earrings, waxed chests/legs/arms/privates, sickly-sweet Cologne, pedicured and manicured toes and fingers, artificial tans, hair-extensions, facials, etc.

Then take a look at the women you see around you. Do they remind you very much of women of your mom or grandmother’s generation?

And hey, I’m not making value judgements here; not saying it’s a good or bad thing–just commenting on a societal drift that may help provide an answer as to why America is producing such few candidates for viral, strong action roles.

To your point, Peter: a lot of fans have stated that Daniel Craig is the first real “actor’s actor” to play Bond. It seems an almost novel idea–an action film where the lead is a “real” actor. After Craig we saw Liam Neeson make a huge career comeback with his recent action films. He wasn’t really known as that kind of actor before. He was more of a drama/stage “type”. Again, I’m really repeating other’s observations. I’m sure some people would think these comments smack of actor snobbishness, as if the previous Bonds weren’t good actors.

I happen to believe, for the most part, the previous Bonds were more “stars” than real nitty gritty actors, with the exception of Timothy Dalton (who, after Connery, is my favorite Bond).

How about “Fictional Fan-Favorites forcibly fascinate fervent film-goers”?

Probably over the top, I know.

Changing the subject (kinda), speaking of Daniel Craig, the sequel to the novel “Layer Cake” was just released. I picked up – but haven’t read yet – “Viva La Madness” by J.J. Connolly. The first novel was excellent so I’m looking forward to this one.