Sign Up for the Daily Filmfodder Newsletter       

Movie News

As Bloom Goes?

Orlando Bloom The New York Times (login required) decries the state of the current crop of movie stars. It claims they aren't delivering the big hits like they used to. To illustrate this, they pick on poor, poor Orlando Bloom.

It seems that Bloom wasn't able to reproduce the success that the "Lord of the Ring Trilogy" experienced in his later flicks "Troy", "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Elizabethtown." However, they put very little stock in the fact that two of the roles were intended for other actors before Bloom showed up for work. Ridley Scott wanted Russel Crowe for "Kingdom of Heaven." Ashton Kutchner was originally intended to play the lead in "Elizabethtown."

Now, I'm not going trying to be an apologist for Orlando Bloom. He's got an agent, and he's got a public relations person, I'm not looking for their jobs. I do have a problem when the "paper of record" blaming all of these failures on Bloom not being enough of an star when "Elizabethtown" was originally going to headed up by Ashton Kutchner. It's possible that there were other problems with these productions. --Terrence Ryan

 

Tags:
Posted by on January 4, 2006 9:03 PM
Permalink | Email to a Friend | Add to del.icio.us | Digg This





The main problem was the story line in Elizabethtown ...it was just not very interesting....Crowe ended it like he didnt know what to do with it and Kirsten Dunst was sooo annoying....Bloom did a satisfactory job I thought....Kingdom of Heaven was a mistake in the content in this day and age....Orlando did a very good job in that I thought......The best movie I have seen him in is The Calcium Kid...he has good comedic talent.....if his agent could get him a decent vehicle he might do better. Plus not very many people today are interested in anything that doesnt have special effects, cgi and fantastic graphics. It is the age we are in.

-- Posted by: Ariadne at January 5, 2006 6:01 PM

The problem with Kingdom of Heaven wasn't Orlando Bloom. It was the studio's insistence on releasing
a butchered shortened theatrical version.

There's a Director's Cut now showing in LA that's much better. Jeffrey Wells says so. See http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/01/respect_this_mo.php David Poland says so too. He put it in his Top Ten of the year. See http://www.thehotbutton.com/today/hot.button/2005_thb/051230a_fri.html

Bloom took a lot of the blame for this movie, but the lackluster response to it was never his fault. It was the fault of the studio for releasing a lackluster version of the movie.

-- Posted by: Katie at January 5, 2006 6:53 PM

I don't think he got bad reviews because these films were originally intended for other actors. If that was the case, then every bad actor can always blame the fact that the part was originally someone else's. It's how THE actor carries that role in the movie that counts. I'm sure there are countless other movies that were supposed to be lead by some actor who was not available and had to be replaced by another actor who actually did the movies proud.

I think Bloom still needs to work on his acting skills and still has a ways to go. But he does need to work on his wooden expressions that's in all these movies.

-- Posted by: Aire at January 5, 2006 7:34 PM

You both make a lot of sense. However I would argue that since chaning actors triggers rewrites to retro-fit parts to actors, it can detract.

More over, my bigger issue was that the Times wrote such a bad piece.

-- Posted by: Terrence Ryan at January 5, 2006 9:10 PM

I hate the fact that the basis for whether a film is "good" or "bad" is based on ticket sales. I know, I know how else are they going to gage it? Think about! I for rarely go to see movies in the theater anymore. Elizabethtown was a first in a long time. I'd rather wait for it to come out on DVD and pay a 2.99 rental fee as opposed to a 8-10 dollar fee. (Not to mention popcorn and drinks!)

I personally liked Kingdom Of Heaven and Elizabethtown. They may not have been his best, but were still quality. Not to metion that Orlando Bloom's audience is said to be mainly teenage girls, who without a parent couldn't see Kingdom. Who wants to take mom and dad to gush over the latest hottie? I wish people would stop trying to find the bad, when there may not be any. There must be something wrong since he got big so fast. Not really, he's a nice guy, humble, good looking and well liked. These are the facts. Deal with it.

-- Posted by: Kellie at January 5, 2006 10:43 PM

While you say you are not trying to apologize for Orlando?s ?poor performance?, you seem insistent on blaming Orlando Bloom for the 'failures' of Kingdom of Heaven and Elizabethtown because the directors had to change actors. You need to check your facts.

Russell Crowe was never in the running for the part of Balian because he was too old for the part. He was never offered the part and Ridley Scott has said he was never considered for it.

Cameron Crowe has stated in several interviews that he always wanted Orlando Bloom for Elizabethtown from the start but because of scheduling conflicts moved onto Ashton Kutcher. When that didn't work out, filming had been pushed back enough that Orlando's schedule opened up and he was able to do the film.

I personally loved both films. Both were different and interesting. One made me laugh and the other taught me an awful lot about history without pointing fingers at who was right and who was wrong. Orlando was not the reason for either one to ?fail?. I place the blame more on critics who rated the films. The first based on the gutted theatrical version of KOH by Fox as well as fear of ?possible controversy over issues affecting the Middle East today kept people away. Reviews for an unfinished version Etown that was played at the Toronto Film Festival turned into instant fodder for later critics that passed on and often quoted those first comments in their own reviews compounded its downfall.

Does no one take into account that it costs a small fortune to go to a theater to see a movie? Between the tickets and concession prices its ridiculous. Add to that the fact that the quality of films is just not there. Who wants to spend a day?s pay to see a longer version of a now defunct TV show when you can stay home and watch TV Land and see the same thing with the actors meant to play those parts? Its easier to wait for the DVD release when you can stay home and not deal with the cost.

To add to what Katie stated in a previous response, people need to read Jeffery Wells review as well as others who have seen the director's cut of KOH. In fact, I think that everyone needs to read it and see the director's cut before they bash this movie more than they already have. Everyone who has states that the movie is night and day from the theatrical release and it is everyone?s loss if they don?t see it in its intended form.

-- Posted by: Michelle at January 6, 2006 10:01 AM

Michelle, I'm not blaming him, the New York Times is blaming him. I disagree with their assessment.

-- Posted by: Terrence Ryan at January 6, 2006 8:22 PM

More Recent Stories:
Ten Best Films of 2007
Utah Film Critics Praise “No Country”
Detroit Critics Name “No Country” Best Film
Hudson, Latifah and Okonedo have a “Secret”
Raimi Returns to Horror With “Hell”
Phoenix Critics Pick “No Country” as Year’s Best
Affleck to Replace Norton in “State of Play”
Peter Jackson to make "The Hobbit"
McGregor and Carrey to Share On-Screen Romance
Dallas Critics applaud "No Country for Old Men"