Did Edward Norton not like the movie? - The Italian Job (2003) Discussion

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

And you based that upon?
He did other movies with relatively unknown casts and this had a big one.
I guess he didn't think the original should be remade into this shape. If so, I concur.

reply

[–] sonny_crockett3 17 years ago

If I remember this right paramount wanted a big name for the villian but someone who wouldn't get top billing over marky marky. Nortons name was put forward and paramount asked Norton to do it who refused to do it as no script had been written and he wasn't interested in playing the villian kind of part. paramount carried on offering the part to various actors who all turned it down getting desperate as filming was about to start. parmount decided to use Nortons contract hold they had on him and told him that he was doing the movie as he had not made another movie for them yet and they wanted him.
Norton said that he would rather be the villian in mission impossible 3 which at the time David Fincher was in talks to direct. Paramount said no as they needed a villian for the italian job and MI3 was only in early development and threatened to sue him for a breach of his original contract as it stated that they could put him in a project of their choosing.
Norton rather than being sued agreed to do it only if they could film his stuff in a 4 week block as he was due to do another film (cant remeber what it was) Paramount agreed but Norton refused to do any publicist he was not contracted for and made no secret that he didn't want any part of the italian job.
No idea what his final thoughts are on the finished movie but if like mine the movie sucks I would have rather seen him as the villian in MI 3 although Phillip Seymour Hoffman rules!!!!

reply

[–] vodkaduck 16 years ago

I get the feeling that he thought he was pretty hot stuff after that one movie he did. Was being a tad picky, kinda divaish to me. I hate when people won't do a fun movie because they think they're above this.

I guess it wasn't the dove...

reply

[–] Fullhouser 16 years ago

phew... where do you get these opinions. this movie gave no real challenge for norton anyway and it is very understandable for him not wanting to do this. his role was too little and offered nothing special. Maybe he just thought he would get a role more enjoyable or challenging or something. You really think its better that actors don't get to decide themselves whether they play in the movie or not? this movie wasn't that good anyway so he had right suspicions anyway. This movie was fun but edward norton does really have much better things to do. This movie just wanted some name for itself by wanting norton.

Jake: She says he's pretty.
Joey: Yeah, well, you make him ugly.

reply

[–] dkirkc 16 years ago

This movie gave him no challenge at all.
He likes to pick interesting roles, and this one
did nothing for him. It had nothing to do with
how "big" he thought he was. The role just didn't
interest him.

I think that's what I respect the most about
him. He picks roles he likes, and he doesn't
only do it for the money.

The good news is you're going to the party.
The bad news is you're the caterer.

reply

[–] silverbullets 16 years ago

Well, the writers did give him some lame/random/cliche/irrelevant lines, such as "If that makes you sleep any better, sweetheart" and "You should have seen the look on your daddy's face as he begged for his life" (or whatever they were). The whole movie is supposed to be fantastical, so I had no problem with the lack of police on the huge chase scene and such, but I did feel for him having to deliver those totally unrealistic (!) lines.

On the other hand, I tend to think he's always been somewhat of an overrated actor. Aside from his role in Fight Club, he tends to always have the same tone, and is always a bit wooden no matter who the character is. I'm sure many would disagree. But all this to say, it certainly wasn't a role that would have made it easy to transcend his sort of generic take on his characters.

reply

[–] michaeldecker 16 years ago

He was rubbish throughout this film, and ruined some of the potentially great scenes. His reaction, when suddenly confronted in the restaurant with the four guys he last saw drowning in an icy river was about as convincing as his silly little moustache and chin beard combo.

He's a fairly one dimensional actor at the best of times, but this one took the cake - the least convincing villain in any action caper I can remember.

reply

[–] yusifg 11 years ago

Edward Norton - one-dimensional?? I seldom post on these boards, but I think you should post even less...

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] koffeenkreame41-1 9 years ago

I get the feeling you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Let's see, off the top of my head some of the films Norton dd after "Primal Fear" were "Everyone Says I Love You," "The People vs. Larry Flynt," "Rounders," and "American History X."

Soon after he was in "Fight Club," directed himself in the charming "Keeping the Faith" and was dating Salma Hayek at the time he had an unbilled cameo in "The Cradle Will Rock."

I'd say his stuff was a lot hotter than yours ever was, and these examples were years ago. Norton was and is one of the finest actors of his time and generation.

I was disappointed to see him play an aloof villain in a rote remake of a much better film, and it's no surprise to me he likely played the part out of contractual obligation. Even his starring turn in the execrable "Death to Smoochy" had more meat to it than this pale role.

Damn, OWNED LOL!  I liked him in this film though.

"I'm the ultimate badass,you do NOT wanna f-ck wit me!"Hudson,Aliens😬

reply

[–] mkatina-1 8 years ago

i had to agree with michaeldecker, its not the first time Norton has ruined a movie, whether you liked this film or not. What about Red Dragon, playing Will Graham. That movie should have never been made anyway, Manhunter was far and away the better film. I have always thought he was overrated, even in Everyone Says I Love You, though that was a one dimensional character for a one dimensional actor.

reply

[–] michaeldecker 8 years ago

Blimey - I wrote that in 2008, and still remember how ghastly his performance was.

And oh yes - Red Dragon - he absolutely ruined that film, again by failing to act convincingly (unless he was playing someone who'd overdosed on Prozac and Valium). His performance was at the level of a High School amateur end of term play - dismal.

I think I've seen him in something since where he wasn't too bad, but can't remember what it was. I guess as long as he's cast properly he can just walk through it and get away with it...

reply

[–] mfsaker 12 years ago

I really liked the movie but totally agree he was wooden in his portrayal.

reply

[–] pater-tenebrarum 9 years ago

Regardless of what one thinks of him as an actor, he does have a habit of picking interesting roles as you say - usually in interesting movies. This is an excellent strategy for an actor who wants to get somewhere career-wise, as people begin to subconsciously associate his name with good movies. As a result the actor's name becomes a factor drawing people to movies in which he appears - not necessarily due to the quality of his acting, but due to the aforementioned association. We can conclude that Norton is smart.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 8 years ago

... This movie was fun but edward norton does really have much better things to do. This movie just wanted some name for itself by wanting norton.

In 2003 Norton wasn't that much of a "name" was he?

-
"There's a lot of RAGE inside me about it". ~ Austin Matelson

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] deltajvliet 13 years ago

Thanks for that summary. Norton in M:I 3, huh? That would have been pretty amazing, though PSH did a fine job.

I can promise you a day of reckoning that you will not live long enough to never forget.

reply

[–] sbcc-1 16 years ago

hmmm its a *beep* film, and a poorly written 1 dimensional character. i cant imagine why he wouldnt want have liked it.

reply

[–] Prom_Queen_Carrie 16 years ago

Norton has always struck me as an actor who was a little too into himself and takes himself too seriously. He's wanted so badly to be like De Niro was in the 70s and 80s. He's pretentious. I heard him on the Fight Club commentary and it made me not like him.

reply

[–] jax4000 16 years ago

"A little less questions, a little more shut the hell up"

reply

[–] axiomattic 16 years ago

Has anyone criticizing Norton on these boards ever saw ''Death to Smoochy''? If so then consider his character as a representation of Norton in real life. He has hundreds of convictions for which he stands for (something most people who thinks he take himself too seriously cannot understand).

In the beginning he does his show for heroin addicts because it can help people. Then he gets picked up by a major network to entertain kids (i.e. the american public). The part where he finds himself in a nazi rally without knowing it is a HUGE reminder of the movie American History X which is revealed to me like a movie with 2 sides. Normal people will be shocked and the hitlerian youth will LOVE it. Smoochy is tricked into playing for them. (am i alone on this? after i saw an interview with the bald-head blue eyed Tony Kaye who wrote and directed the movie before the producers took it back, I was 100% convinced that it was a pronazi movie. People who'll talk about his change in the middle of the movie forget how little the impact is compared to the part in prison where you feel comforted when you see he has nazi allies after a cohort of black people gazed hatefully at him. And why again does he CHANGE? oh because a black dude made him laugh with pantie jokes. Ahem. I think i would be a lot more picky on my roles if I was tricked to play a role model for f----- up kids.

People who thinks he takes himself too seriously because he doesnt want to be forced in a role should be aware of how producers work. Freedom of choice is a rare thing for an actor. It may sound like an ego thing but I respect a lot more actors like Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Leo Dicaprio, Christian Bale and Norton, because they are not sellout despite the rank of fame they reached and still work for the love of it and not just to buy a bigger villa.

reply

[–] lonniemac 12 years ago

Right on 100%. NOrton thinks he is better than he is, he cannot "open" a movie. Better in a supporting role than a starring role.

reply

[–] Gbolling1984 12 years ago

I understand all sides. no one likes to be forced into anything and if he was i can see him not giving 100% in the role. i actually thought he did well with what he was given but he has been better. on the other hand, if his noes was in the air about this being beneath him then i think that's wrong. he has made good films and some pretty crappy ones too and this one is better than some of his more less fortunate offerings. The film was also well received by audience and critics. i remember this being a bit of a surprise hit when it came out. i am curious to know how he got along with the cast if he clearly didn't want to be there

reply

[–] richopp 12 years ago

Well, golly, these people are grown-ups playing pretend for more cash than anyone on this board will see in 4 lifetimes.

He didn't like the role and he had a contract? Well, he should have done what all Americans seem to be good at doing these days, which is lying, cheating, and stealing to find a way out of this "horrible" film so he could protect his artistic integrity.

Shakespeare it ain't, but if you can't relax with a tub of popcorn and watch a silly film to take your mind off things, you have more issues than anyone here can handle. This was certainly a fun film, had nothing to do with the original ON PURPOSE, and gave everyone in the audience a couple of laughs and a fun time when I saw it. If it isn't "good enough" for your hightened artistic sensibliites, walk out and ask for your $$ back or don't go in the first place. We wouldn't want you to get your panties in a bunch, would we children?

If you are into Hitchcock and Eisenstein, go back to college and take a film course. Then you can sit in the rarified air of esoteric film criticism and talk about ECUs and "motion of the camera vs motion of the subject vs both" ad infinitum. The rest of us will relax for a couple of hours and see something fairly entertaining and enjoyable.

Oh, and Norton is to P. S. Hoffman as an actor as Bullwinkle is to Richard Burton. Finally, if you want an example of a pretty bad silly film, the new MI is a good example, not this one.

reply

[–] StrayCat1000 8 years ago

Yep, in real life he's a major a$$wipe.

-
"There's a lot of RAGE inside me about it". ~ Austin Matelson

reply

[–] robster_ 16 years ago

Certainly was a fun and entertaining movie, but considering Norton's movie resume and choice of roles, i don't think its at his same level of class.

reply

[–] bkhl 16 years ago

Well, if this led to some tension in the cast, it's probably good for the movie. Some of the best parts of this movie was in the electricity in the air between Norton and Wahlberg, in particular in the restaurant scene.

reply

[–] TheFreshPrince90 16 years ago

Probabyl because this movie is trash lol

Nah its not a bad movie, but I can see why he wouldnt like doing it, his role was too boring

---
Jean Claude Van Damme Im fine!

reply

[–] kissthesky5056 16 years ago

i agree
some people need to lay off. it's a boring role. the character isn't interesting, the lines aren't interesting, and after a couple of scenes you just kinda get TIRED of something like that.
he picks his movies carefully
anyone who acts for the sake of enjoying themselves and having a good experience (Not just for the money) would understand

HOWEVER i think he did do a good job with steve
he made you hate his character, and support the heroes (marky mark and charlize), which is exactly what a good villain does

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] keep-sweet 16 years ago

I don't think he was being too picky, the role was simply uncreative and embarrassing.

reply

[–] richardwarnercool1 16 years ago

Plus the fact that he was forced into it by a contract. Name one person that likes to be forced to do something?

reply

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

Plus the fact that he was forced into it by a contract. Name one person that likes to be forced to do something?

True! But to be fair to the studio, he'd then proceeded to decline the second part of his 3 picture deal for the next 7 years. You can imagine the suits were beginning to get a little antsy.🐭

reply

[–] Harvestmoonman13 15 years ago

I thought he was pretty crappy in this movie...but then the movie itself was pretty crappy. His heart wasn't in it.

reply

[–] jtyroler 11 years ago

According to one of the DVD extras, Edward Norton (I guess if you call him Ed, that makes him Ralph Kramden's neighbor) was allowed to contribute suggestions to the role.

reply

[–] SplEffx 16 years ago

Everyone is missing the key element here.

Sometimes its the part that creates the actor (Like Sly in ROCKY) while other times it the actor who created the part (Like Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs as Dr. Hannibal Lecter ).

Would the role of the villain been played any better had another actor played the part?

Any "GREAT" actor can take a seemingly minuscule part and make a great part/movie from it.

Example: Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, Could anyone else have played Hannibal Lecter any better? I think not, Yet who do you remember most from that movie?

Edward Norton is a good actor, who did a good job as the villain.

He should stop the baby crying and be the great actor he claims to be.

Can you imagine if Anthony Hopkins had cried/worried about playing the role of a serial killer?

reply

[–] TheLastStop41 16 years ago

Despite that Hopkins created the character of Hannibal Lecter, he also had an absolutely fantastic screenplay that he was working with. Norton was not blessed with the same luxury with The Italian Job, and I guarantee you just about any veteran actor wouldn't make Norton's role any better had they been cast. If you think Hopkins could have created a villain as memorable working with a script like The Italian Job, you need to rethink your argument, because the screenplay couldn't even begin to dream to be in the same league (it's not even the same sport) as the screenplay for Silence of the Lambs.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LGDzMVPziDw

reply

[–] damongruber 15 years ago

Well put!

And, besides, for those who say Edward Norton was "crappy" here due to the "crappiness" of the movie, PLEASE watch the job Charlize Theron did, as a true professional, regardless of the kind of movie she was in. Her stressed and angry expressions during the dinner with Steven were superb.

Edward Norton screwed it up. Sorry for his fans, but HE IS one-dimensional and MEDIOCRE! Otherwise, he might have done what (as SplEffx pointed) what Anthony Hopkins did with Hannibal Lecter, or Heath Ledger with The Joker, or even Gary Oldman as Zorg: take advantage of a few minutes as a villain, and deliver a memorable performance, EVEN IF HE WAS COERCED BY A CONTRACT!

That's why he ended up doing another crappy "Hulk" instead of "Dark Knight", for example. HE SIMPLY SUCKS! I hate him for screwing otherwise magnificent movies he's been in, like "The Score".

---

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] user-18049 16 years ago

I think it might be because he knew that this film was going to be terrible the moment he heard of it's existance.

He was right.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] krisluvkev 15 years ago

Because he had done a movie two years earlier with the same premise with Marlon Brando and Robert Di Niro called the Score. Maybe ge just didn't want to do another movie with a similar theme.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]