Two sides of the same coin?

By Aaron 8/8/2007

After leaving The Bourne Ultimatum a few days ago, someone said, “That was the same as Shooter.” Then it clicked – Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg are two sides of the same coin – their projects ALWAYS mirror each other (see right). Well, almost always. This is not the first time two rising Hollywood stars have churned out similar projects, but this time seemed to be TOO similar. But just like any other “product” one is better than the other, one is the established “name brand”, while the other is the latecomer, the “generic brand”. So I decided to run down through the films and see who the real McCoy was, and who the pretender was.

 
Their careers began to pick up some steam when they landed small supporting roles in teen/school dramas: School Ties (Damon) and The Basketball Diaries (Wahlberg). School Ties’ star Brendan Frasier had to cope with his addiction to the high life of rich society while The Basketball Diaries’ DiCaprio had to cope with a more literal addiction – drugs. Matt Damon had some speaking lines and had an impact on the story, while Wahlberg was little more than a wall decoration.

 
They both got sucked into the beaten path for a short period when their agent got them roles with Lou Diamond Philips in the late 90’s: Courage Under Fire (Damon) and The Big Hit (Wahlberg). Not much to say there – Courage Under Fire disappointed, and The Big Hit was awesome. Here, Wahlberg showed the first signs of being the action star that Damon would become.

 
Unsure of where to go from here, looking for projects that would help them climb away from view askew or campy rap careers, they took con men roles in 1997: Damon as a lawyer in The Rainmaker, and Wahlberg as a literal con man in Traveller. Both movies were decent and had veteran actors, DeVito in The Rainmaker, and Paxton in Traveller. Damon’s turn in The Rainmaker paved the way to larger projects while most people ignored Traveller.

 
They both began to find their commercial bearings when they took war movie roles: Saving Private Ryan (Damon) and Three Kings (Wahlberg). Saving Private Ryan was a tried and true war movie, while Three Kings was a drastically different take featured new camera technology that helped give the movie a surrealism. But at the end of the year, Saving Private Ryan got the Oscar nods and Three Kings had to settle for a Blockbuster award.

 
Then they both decided to make one of those crazy, intense suspense movies: Damon as the “antagonist” in The Talented Mr. Ripley, Wahlberg as the “protagonist” in The Truth About Charlie. Both movies kind of gave you whiplash and left you wondering, was he really the bad guy? Or, was he really the good guy? That one was kind of a draw.

 
Then they made the roles that showed they really were the same when they made the movies everyone knows about: Ocean’s Eleven (Damon) and The Italian Job (Wahlberg). Both heist movies were remakes of classics that featured ensemble casts and slick camera work. While Damon’s character’s importance increased over three movies, Wahlberg’s sequels languished in production hell.

 
Then there was the year of brothers in 2005 and we saw Damon in The Brothers Grimm and Wahlberg in Four Brothers. Damon’s movie escaped criticism because no one saw it, while Wahlberg heard harsher words for his which usually happens whenever you make a movie with a rapper.

 
Then Damon helmed his own franchise as Jason Bourne, a popular character of Robert Ludlum, and Wahlberg hit back, possibly starting a franchise as Bob Lee Swagger, Stephen Hunter’s cult favorite. Damon’s franchise easily spawned three films, while Wahlberg’s planed out at one.

 
They finally crossed paths in The Departed, where Damon starred as a mob bosses protégé playing cop and Wahlberg had nothing to do but come back with We Own the Night, where he plays a cop looking to take down the mob in a movie that could not help but steal the advertising of The Departed – colors and all. Damon’s film would go on to win Best Picture while We Own the Night was snuck in at the end of 2007.

 
There are certain anomalies that do not have perfect parallels, such as how when Damon was writing and starring in an Oscar favorite, Wahlberg was diggling naked in a film most people could not see.

 
And when it comes to the movie business, Damon is the top dog – a story this week showed that per dollar paid, no other actor in Hollywood comes close to Damon’s 1:29 ratio. It does not help that Damon’s The Bourne Ultimatum grossed over $70 million in the first weekend, more than Wahlberg’s latest, Shooter, which has grossed about $55 million to date.

 
So unfortunately for Wahlberg, Damon is the “tails” to Wahlberg’s “heads” – and tails never fails.

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.