Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
August 18, 2009
The real question is "Which one has the better chance of playing a super villain?"Kim Hollis: Moving forward, who will have the better career - Rachel McAdams or Eric Bana?
Josh Spiegel: Just as it was a few years back, Rachel McAdams could become the next big female film star, just like Julia Roberts. The question is whether she wants to be the next Julia Roberts. McAdams isn't as concerned with being a marquee name, I think, based on her absence for a year or two in movies. But, if she wanted it, I think she's the next big star, alongside Amy Adams. Bana has proved this summer that he has plenty of versatility; first, he was a sneering alien villain; next, he was a loutish Aussie; now, he's a moony-eyed time traveler. None of those roles are the same. I think Bana has a slightly better career ahead of him, if only because he'll work more steadily.
Scott Lumley: I don't know about either of these two. Rachel seems disinclined to go the whole Hollywood route, and those career gaps are hard to overcome especially in "What have you done for us in what have you done for us lately land?", which is otherwise know as Hollywood. On the other hand, Bana's been in quite a few movies that while not exactly flops, haven't exactly set the world on fire, either (The Hulk and Troy spring to mind almost immediately). I like him as an actor, but he never seems to spring to mind for nearly any other project. I don't know if he should ever really be considered a top tier star, but he's certainly capable as supporting cast.
Jason Lee: Since 2005 (with a combined summer of Wedding Crashers and Red Eye) I've been waiting for McAdams to burst into superstardom. For whatever reason, it hasn't quite happened yet, but I still think that she's got the looks, the charisma and the sheer TALENT for a long and successful career.
Reagen Sulewski: Can I pick neither? One of the things that was interesting about this film is that both its leads are people that Hollywood has been attempting to force us into accepting as stars through sheer force of will. This is probably a case of the material lifting them up, but neither of them have been able to get a lot of people to see a movie just because they're in it. For instance, yes, Bana's been in a lot of big movies this summer, yes, but can you honestly say he made any of them what they are? And I say as someone who's seen Chopper and has seen what he's capable of as an actor.
David Mumpower: I agree with Scott that McAdams doesn't seem to want it enough. She would be the most successful female actress in the industry in terms of box office if she were willing to work non-stop. Instead, she is someone who seems to carefully choose her projects and therefore works infrequently. Of course, that makes the choice of The Time Traveler's Wife regrettable in hindsight but this looked like a perfect project on paper. Bana's career is fascinating to me. As Kim Hollis said the other day, his only memorable role was Chopper. Ever since then, he's been repeatedly cast by Hollywood in roles that better actors would have made into readily identifiable characters. There is this weird love of his work in Munich that was noticed by the right people and it seems to guarantee his continual casting in spite of his failings as a talent *and* a box office draw. North America keeps rejecting him yet Hollywood keeps putting him in films. I strongly suspect that he must be the most wonderful guy in the world to know and that's why people are making poor business decisions about him as a professional. There are worse things to be in life than a mediocre talent with unjustified success and a glowing personality. In fact, I can't think of anything much better.