De Niro and Pacino were recently pilloried in the L.A. Times for the wretched quality of their recent work, blaming their choices of bad parts in worse films on vanity and greed. The impetus for the article was the release of Pacino's last stinker, 88 Minutes, a horrendous embarassment produced and directed by the same bargain basement team that has now given us Righteous Kill. Here is the link, it makes for instructive reading: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/22 ... oldstein22
De Niro was also the subject of a scathing email by an anonymous CAA agent that was sent all over town when De Niro ended his relationship with that agency. Here is the link: http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsononho ... its-f.html
Question for you, Todd - is Righteous Kill in the "so bad it's good" category, or should I skip it altogether?
Question for the members of Wellesnet: Orson Welles acted in a lot of tripe for the money, but poured the funds back into the work that he cared about. Actors like Pacino and De Niro, already loaded, act in a lot of tripe for the money and put the money into restaurants and hotels, instead of funding interesting, low budget work. Why is Orson still considered by most of the public to have been a self-destructive failure, who produced one great film and then became a dissipated international joke, while these guys are lauded?