Richard Donner discusses Chris Reeve and typecasting

[Metallo]

From the Life After Flash (Gordon) documentary

[dejan]

Thanks for sharing that.

And can't fault that analysis from the great man.

I used the example before, but just imagine, hypothetically!(and putting aside other variables, age , acting experience ect ect), that Somewhere In Time , Death Trap, The Bostonians and in particular Monsignor(whatever it's faults as a film) came out before STM......or imagine that STM came out in 1984/5 after the aforementioned flicks.

How would early 80s fans have reacted when news broke through that the guy who played the decietful priest, the unpredicatable siociopath, the mysogonistic social climber and the love stricken old fashioned romantic(in all the films described above) had just been chosen to play Sups?!!

Would have been interesting to see that reaction.

But yes, Reeve was actually a theatrical camelion..
He was a Hackman type actor, he looked roughly the same from film to film.....but his performances were different.
Someone like DeNiro of course had the ability to physically transform.

I know these are only photos derived from stage plays and theater, but if you goto 8:22 in the following video , you can see that Reeve had the capacity to look different too......he actually transformed his appearance for STM.....but because he was unknown....people just assumed he always looked like a brick house!  



 

IMHO....should have been considered for an oscar for anyone of the first 3 Supes flicks.
And should have have been nominated(and even won) supporting roles for Deathtrap and The Bostonians.
In 87' , I personally think he held his own against Freeman in Street Smart(I know it's not a popular opinion---but Reeve's presense , I think, brought out the best in Freeman). 

I actually think that had Reeve done such films prior to making Superman......that he would have been considered for an Oscar for Superman!(I and or II).

My opinion anyways
 

[Metallo]

It probably would have been similar to the reaction Keaton got when he was cast as Batman in the 80s. Not so much because of comedy and fear of the film not being taken seriously like Keaton and Batman but because it sounds like such an out of left field choice. It really would have been something if Reeve was best known for all that before Superman and people saw him with the pre Superman physique. Outside of soap viewers most people didn’t know what to expect there.

I also think Reeve could look radically different depending on make up/skin tone and his weight. You see some photos of him from the 80s where he slimmed back down and it’s hard to believe it’s him.

I think Donner really had some great insight when he talked about actors getting into their own heads when it comes to the typecasting fears and how they feel they have to fight against it. I think Reeve’s own fears and choices hurt his career more than any actual typecasting did. If he’d taken certain roles he turned down he may have been able to better define his career outside of Superman.

[dejan]

As Donner said:

"He was a darn fine little actor!"

it's interesting you mention some of the choices he made regarding various roles:

check out this interview with Carly Simon in 85', where he talks about SIV, the Running Man and dressing up as a Sikh warrior for a film called the Decievers.



I really wish he made The Decievers and even Running Man, as opposed to SIV!

Looks like Nick "Wrath Of Khan" Meyer torpedoed Reeve's involvement in The Decievers:

"'Here's a story about an Englishman who disguises himself as an Indian,' I reasoned. 'If you cast this actor, you will have an American disguising himself as an Englishman, disguising himself as an Indian. We will be lost in the stunt, even if he pulls it off, and not pay attention to the story and the things we want to take for granted, i.e., that it concerns an Englishman.'"

I personally think this role would have been perfect for Reeve.
Nick Meyer obviously did not watch SIII(and some would argue with good reason-lol!) , where Reeve conveyed :

Good Supes
Bad Supes
Bumbling Clark(although  briefly)
Natural Clark(with Lana)
Fighting Clark(with evil Supes)

That's 5 distinct and unique character behaviors in one movie.
Would love to have seen DeNiro pull that one off! 


And for a comparison , check out this video of Cavill talking with thespian par excellance, Patrick  Stewart:
 


what I find most interesting , is that Cavill seems to go blank when Stewart references his own stage career.
Cavill, having never been a professional stage actor, only seems to be able to quiz Stewart on.......  his Star Trek career---lol.

Had this been a convo between Reeve and Stewart , they would have been riffing off each other with regards to Midsummers Night Dream, Hamlet, Macbeth, Merchant In Venice(sorry I am-or was- a bit partial to Shakespear myself-lol).......and of course .....Pickard and Supes....... or whatever else.

Reeve brought that theatrical stage training to Superman......and that's one of the crucial reasons why we still talk about the guy now. 

On edit:
In fact, I would argue that , outside of Superman, Reeve had a more successfull stage career than a film one.

[atp]

Reeve being an unknown was part of what made STM work.

It wouldn't have been the same if he had done those other prominent movies first.

[Metallo]

Sept 10, 2021 14:37:28 GMT -5 dejan said:

As Donner said:

"He was a darn fine little actor!"

it's interesting you mention some of the choices he made regarding various roles:

check out this interview with Carly Simon in 85', where he talks about SIV, the Running Man and dressing up as a Sikh warrior for a film called the Decievers.



I really wish he made The Decievers and even Running Man, as opposed to SIV!

Looks like Nick "Wrath Of Khan" Meyer torpedoed Reeve's involvement in The Decievers:

"'Here's a story about an Englishman who disguises himself as an Indian,' I reasoned. 'If you cast this actor, you will have an American disguising himself as an Englishman, disguising himself as an Indian. We will be lost in the stunt, even if he pulls it off, and not pay attention to the story and the things we want to take for granted, i.e., that it concerns an Englishman.'"

I personally think this role would have been perfect for Reeve.
Nick Meyer obviously did not watch SIII(and some would argue with good reason-lol!) , where Reeve conveyed :

Good Supes
Bad Supes
Bumbling Clark(although  briefly)
Natural Clark(with Lana)
Fighting Clark(with evil Supes)

That's 5 distinct and unique character behaviors in one movie.
Would love to have seen DeNiro pull that one off! 


And for a comparison , check out this video of Cavill talking with thespian par excellance, Patrick  Stewart:
 


what I find most interesting , is that Cavill seems to go blank when Stewart references his own stage career.
Cavill, having never been a professional stage actor, only seems to be able to quiz Stewart on.......  his Star Trek career---lol.

Had this been a convo between Reeve and Stewart , they would have been riffing off each other with regards to Midsummers Night Dream, Hamlet, Macbeth, Merchant In Venice(sorry I am-or was- a bit partial to Shakespear myself-lol).......and of course .....Pickard and Supes....... or whatever else.

Reeve brought that theatrical stage training to Superman......and that's one of the crucial reasons why we still talk about the guy now. 

On edit:
In fact, I would argue that , outside of Superman, Reeve had a more successfull stage career than a film one.

It’s interesting you say that about The Deceivers because years later Reeve says that HE also felt he was wrong for the role he was up for. Claiming it was one step too far as far as all the layers or roles within roles. Wether Reeve was lying to save face or he was actually telling the truth it’s hard to say but peronally I agree with him. Reeve was a fine actor but it would have been easier for an English actor. Brosnan obviously wasn’t born in England but he’d spent more than enough time living there to be more convincing than most American actors.




I do wish he'd made The Running Man. The Schwarzenegger version is fun in a hammy over the top way and it's still a very prescient film in some respects but it's flawed and wasn't a hit. It could have been so much better and I always felt the version Reeve was involved with sounded more interesting and closer to Stephen Kings story. Of course the movie went through a lot of changes in development and he could have ended up in a film similar to what we got or worse. Reeve may have dodged a bullet.

As for Reeve vs Cavill that video shows why Cavill hasn't taken off as a mainstream blockbuster leading man when so many of his peers have. It also shows why he didn't get the Bond role (besides being too young at the time. Man From Uncle flopped, Immortals seems to be forgotten, and his one career life preserver for now seems to be a Netflix series. Netflix will put out almost anything so that's not saying much.

Reeve wanted to make money but he was also interested in the craft of acting. Cavill has openly admitted that he wants to be a movie star and it's mostly about the money. He's not doing the kinds of roles where he'd improve as an actor. He's going for the paychecks and more concerned about his looks. He's a serviceable actor when used right but he's very one note lacking in charisma. Reeve could be likable and charming on screen which is essential to Superman. People have to like him. It's why guys like Hemsworth and Evans, while not being huge box office draws outside of their Marvel movies, are so liked by the Marvel fan base. Even Momoa and Gadot are doing better than Cavill career wise and they're not very good either.

[dejan]

Sept 10, 2021 15:55:58 GMT -5 atp said:

Reeve being an unknown was part of what made STM work.

It wouldn't have been the same if he had done those other prominent movies first.

Yeah that's an interesting angle.

I think in commercial terms, it would have potentially done less well(maybe!).
In artistic terms ,Reeve's extra "movie" experience , by being in other films prior to Supes, may have hypothetically helped elavate his performance even more(again-maybe!).
In fact , had Donner been finishing Supes II(and shooting STM & SII together), and if Reeve had been a more experienced actor by that point , he would have given a slightly more organic performance for something like the depowering scene, which required a certain emotional depth.

In fact, looking at the depowering(and repowering) scene in Lester's SII, Reeve's performance has that bit of subtelty that he expressed in Somewhere In Time  , when he wakes up in the barn, having just been beaten up by Plummer's thugs and he chases round the hotel searching for Jane Seymour.

Fair enough, I am stretching it a bit here!, I concede.....but it's interesting to debate nonetheless.
Of course , you could argue the opposite , and say that an experienced Chris Reeve could have been jaded by the time he did STM and not given a f**k!----therefore depleting the quality of the final product.

What also made STM work was that because Reeve was an unknown, he was really striving to prove the point that he had genuine talent.

[dejan]

Metallo

Thanks for that Remains Of The Day interview.
What can I say....lol....I can't argue with the big guy....if he says he did not want to ultimately recite in The Decievers , then I guess that's what it is.


Of course there are plenty of promotional interviews where Reeve says that the up coming/soon to be released  film , be it SIII , SIV , The Aviator and Monsignor is/are great.

And then you have him pouring crap on the same film(s)some years later when the promotional pressure is off.
In fact he does so in the Carley Simon appearance, where he denigrates SIII(just 2 years after it's theatrical release).

Even so, I personally would like to have seen him play that role in The Decievers---seemed interesting--and Reeve seems genuinly invigorated when talking about it with Simon in 85'.

On a side note ,Alec Guiness gave an eclectic performance as a Guru in A Passage To India showing that it could be done......but that's Alec Guiness!


 

[Metallo]

Sept 10, 2021 18:42:17 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

Thanks for that Remains Of The Day interview.
What can I say....lol....I can't argue with the big guy....if he says he did not want to ultimately recite in The Decievers , then I guess that's what it is.


Of course there are plenty of promotional interviews where Reeve says that the up coming/soon to be released  film , be it SIII , SIV , The Aviator and Monsignor is/are great.

And then you have him pouring crap on the same film(s)some years later when the promotional pressure is off.
In fact he does so in the Carley Simon appearance, where he denigrates SIII(just 2 years after it's theatrical release).

Even so, I personally would like to have seen him play that role in The Decievers---seemed interesting--and Reeve seems genuinly invigorated when talking about it with Simon in 85'.

On a side note ,Alec Guiness gave an eclectic performance as a Guru in A Passage To India showing that it could be done......but that's Alec Guiness!


 

As far as promoting III and IV when he knew they were riddled with problems he was just being a team player and most of all fulfilling his contractual obligations. Most actors do that. You get the rare instance of an actor slagging off a movie they’re promoting but most of the time they all play ball until a few years have passed.

You may be right (despite what Reeve says). Maybe it was Nicholas Meyer and not Reeve. I can see him wanting to make a change like that. Maybe he didn’t want an American. Maybe he felt as a film actor Reeve was too closely associated with Superman.

I look at and listen to Reeve’s body language and voice and he does seem a little uncomfortable answering the question. I’m a huge Reeve fan but no actor wants to say “they didn’t want me”… because it looks bad especially after they’d already been brought on board. Meyer is still around and I’d be curious to see it clarified.

Reeve did sound excited to do it at first when he talked about the make up tests but I can also see him getting cold feet because of the make up and not feeling it was right. He left other roles even after he agreed in principle. Look at Mason Verger in Hannibal. I totally get why he changed his mind.

There are so many roles he either turned down or walked away from or for whatever reason it didn’t work out. He was never up for it but I’ve always felt he should have been the one to star in Firefox instead of Clint Eastwood who I just couldn’t buy in a role like that. That one was a step too far…for Clint.

I’m also curious about how it would have turned out if Reeve had done Pretty Woman instead of Richard Gere. It could have been the start of a huge career resurgence for him.

[dejan]

Metallo

That's an interesting proposition with Pretty Woman and Reeve's potential involvement at the expense of Gere.
Back in 78' , Gere starred in Malick's excellent Days Of Heaven which premiered 3 months before Superman.
Days Of Heaven bombed at the office even though it obtained critical acclaim....and Gere , despite being roughly the same age as Reeve, had to plod on in obscurity for a couple more years.
Superman of course, buried the cinematic opposition(Grease apart!) ,such as Days Of Heaven, and Reeve shot to super stardom.
It's rather ironic then, that Reeve stepped down from Pretty Woman , without barely a whimper, 12 years later in 90', allowing Gere to take over.

So it's not just the type casting that is an issue.....it's the timing(or chronology) of it too.
STM was practically the first film Reeve did!---his appearance in Gray Lady Down was almost negligable.
You could argue, and some did, that the only way was down for Reeve after Supes....at least in commercial terms.

To be fair even Di Caprio's flicks since Titanic, have been no where near as commercially successful as Titanic!
But he has still chosen more wisely than Reeve did , ultimately.
To be fair though, I actually think that , Monsignor apart, DeathTrap, Somewhere In Time and The Bostonions were excellent artistic choices(if not neccessarily commercial ones).
And interestingly,Reeve did say that if Monsignor had been edited differently....that there was a respectfully good film hidden inside there(unlike SIV---lol!).
So the early 80s were good for Reeve , I think.
Something went a bit haywire after The Aviator though.....and from the late 80s onwards.
This of course coincided with Reeve's divorce from Exton.....so maybe some personal stuff was impinging on his ability to decipher good projects from bad ones.....SIV included!

Of course George Reeves initiated his incarnation of Supes much later into his career, and still fell into the typecasting loophole.
So the same thing could have happened to Reeve too I guess.

If you look at the years in which the commercially successful films that Reeve turned down, came out in.....and cross reference them with the films that he did choose to do in the same time frame it makes for some interesting observations....my own opinions of course!

1981:
Turned down Body Heat and American Gigolo in favour of SII(which he was contractually obliged to do).
Artistically and commercially correct.

1984:
Turned down Romancing The Stone and Splash in favour of The Bostonians.
Artistically correct, commercially incorrect.

1987:
Turned down Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction in favour of Street Smart.
Artistically and commercially incorrect.

Would love to have seen Reeve in Fatal Attraction....Glen Close was a friend.....would have been interesting to see their on screen chemistry.

[atp]

The Reeve.Only People think he should have been in every movie ever made

[crazy_asian_man]

Sept 11, 2021 17:02:10 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

That's an interesting proposition with Pretty Woman and Reeve's potential involvement at the expense of Gere.
Back in 78' , Gere starred in Malick's excellent Days Of Heaven which premiered 3 months before Superman.
Days Of Heaven bombed at the office even though it obtained critical acclaim....and Gere , despite being roughly the same age as Reeve, had to plod on in obscurity for a couple more years.
Superman of course, buried the cinematic opposition(Grease apart!) ,such as Days Of Heaven, and Reeve shot to super stardom.
It's rather ironic then, that Reeve stepped down from Pretty Woman , without barely a whimper, 12 years later in 90', allowing Gere to take over.

So it's not just the type casting that is an issue.....it's the timing(or chronology) of it too.
STM was practically the first film Reeve did!---his appearance in Gray Lady Down was almost negligable.
You could argue, and some did, that the only way was down for Reeve after Supes....at least in commercial terms.

To be fair even Di Caprio's flicks since Titanic, have been no where near as commercially successful as Titanic!
But he has still chosen more wisely than Reeve did , ultimately.
To be fair though, I actually think that , Monsignor apart, DeathTrap, Somewhere In Time and The Bostonions were excellent artistic choices(if not neccessarily commercial ones).
And interestingly,Reeve did say that if Monsignor had been edited differently....that there was a respectfully good film hidden inside there(unlike SIV---lol!).
So the early 80s were good for Reeve , I think.
Something went a bit haywire after The Aviator though.....and from the late 80s onwards.
This of course coincided with Reeve's divorce from Exton.....so maybe some personal stuff was impinging on his ability to decipher good projects from bad ones.....SIV included!

Of course George Reeves initiated his incarnation of Supes much later into his career, and still fell into the typecasting loophole.
So the same thing could have happened to Reeve too I guess.

If you look at the years in which the commercially successful films that Reeve turned down, came out in.....and cross reference them with the films that he did choose to do in the same time frame it makes for some interesting observations....my own opinions of course!

1981:
Turned down Body Heat and American Gigolo in favour of SII(which he was contractually obliged to do).
Artistically and commercially correct.

1984:
Turned down Romancing The Stone and Splash in favour of The Bostonians.
Artistically correct, commercially incorrect.

1987:
Turned down Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction in favour of Street Smart.
Artistically and commercially incorrect.

Would love to have seen Reeve in Fatal Attraction....Glen Close was a friend.....would have been interesting to see their on screen chemistry.

Reeve's looks make it hard to picture him with a dark side (imo). I think he could have played a lawyer who got suckered (Body Heat) but he seems wrong for many of the other parts. I do think he was hilarious in his supporting part in Switching CHannels (though it's a pity that he didn't get a chance to play off of Michael Caine who had originally been cast in the Burt Reynold's role)- but outside of "Superman" and "Somewhere in Time", it's a pity that he didn't find more signature parts that he felt comfortable with.

[atp]

Sept 20, 2021 0:06:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Sept 11, 2021 17:02:10 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

That's an interesting proposition with Pretty Woman and Reeve's potential involvement at the expense of Gere.
Back in 78' , Gere starred in Malick's excellent Days Of Heaven which premiered 3 months before Superman.
Days Of Heaven bombed at the office even though it obtained critical acclaim....and Gere , despite being roughly the same age as Reeve, had to plod on in obscurity for a couple more years.
Superman of course, buried the cinematic opposition(Grease apart!) ,such as Days Of Heaven, and Reeve shot to super stardom.
It's rather ironic then, that Reeve stepped down from Pretty Woman , without barely a whimper, 12 years later in 90', allowing Gere to take over.

So it's not just the type casting that is an issue.....it's the timing(or chronology) of it too.
STM was practically the first film Reeve did!---his appearance in Gray Lady Down was almost negligable.
You could argue, and some did, that the only way was down for Reeve after Supes....at least in commercial terms.

To be fair even Di Caprio's flicks since Titanic, have been no where near as commercially successful as Titanic!
But he has still chosen more wisely than Reeve did , ultimately.
To be fair though, I actually think that , Monsignor apart, DeathTrap, Somewhere In Time and The Bostonions were excellent artistic choices(if not neccessarily commercial ones).
And interestingly,Reeve did say that if Monsignor had been edited differently....that there was a respectfully good film hidden inside there(unlike SIV---lol!).
So the early 80s were good for Reeve , I think.
Something went a bit haywire after The Aviator though.....and from the late 80s onwards.
This of course coincided with Reeve's divorce from Exton.....so maybe some personal stuff was impinging on his ability to decipher good projects from bad ones.....SIV included!

Of course George Reeves initiated his incarnation of Supes much later into his career, and still fell into the typecasting loophole.
So the same thing could have happened to Reeve too I guess.

If you look at the years in which the commercially successful films that Reeve turned down, came out in.....and cross reference them with the films that he did choose to do in the same time frame it makes for some interesting observations....my own opinions of course!

1981:
Turned down Body Heat and American Gigolo in favour of SII(which he was contractually obliged to do).
Artistically and commercially correct.

1984:
Turned down Romancing The Stone and Splash in favour of The Bostonians.
Artistically correct, commercially incorrect.

1987:
Turned down Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction in favour of Street Smart.
Artistically and commercially incorrect.

Would love to have seen Reeve in Fatal Attraction....Glen Close was a friend.....would have been interesting to see their on screen chemistry.

Reeve's looks make it hard to picture him with a dark side (imo). I think he could have played a lawyer who got suckered (Body Heat) but he seems wrong for many of the other parts. I do think he was hilarious in his supporting part in Switching CHannels (though it's a pity that he didn't get a chance to play off of Michael Caine who had originally been cast in the Burt Reynold's role)- but outside of "Superman" and "Somewhere in Time", it's a pity that he didn't find more signature parts that he felt comfortable with.

I thought his evil Superman in S3 was a fantastic example of his portraying a dark side. Probably a lot of make-up, so it wasn't his natural look, but he did have the acting ability.

[Metallo]

Sept 20, 2021 1:54:25 GMT -5 atp said:

Sept 20, 2021 0:06:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Reeve's looks make it hard to picture him with a dark side (imo). I think he could have played a lawyer who got suckered (Body Heat) but he seems wrong for many of the other parts. I do think he was hilarious in his supporting part in Switching CHannels (though it's a pity that he didn't get a chance to play off of Michael Caine who had originally been cast in the Burt Reynold's role)- but outside of "Superman" and "Somewhere in Time", it's a pity that he didn't find more signature parts that he felt comfortable with.

I thought his evil Superman in S3 was a fantastic example of his portraying a dark side. Probably a lot of make-up, so it wasn't his natural look, but he did have the acting ability.

Yeah I agree. He spent a lot of his post Superman career playing darker more unsavory characters and he did pretty well even when the films weren’t exactly great. Death Trap, Death Dreams, and Above Suspicion had him playing against type. I found him pretty unlikable in Death Dreams. In some ways his looks helped because you could buy him as the powerful or successful guy who felt entitled to whatever he wanted. It just made it creepier.

[dejan]

Sept 20, 2021 0:06:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Sept 11, 2021 17:02:10 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo

That's an interesting proposition with Pretty Woman and Reeve's potential involvement at the expense of Gere.
Back in 78' , Gere starred in Malick's excellent Days Of Heaven which premiered 3 months before Superman.
Days Of Heaven bombed at the office even though it obtained critical acclaim....and Gere , despite being roughly the same age as Reeve, had to plod on in obscurity for a couple more years.
Superman of course, buried the cinematic opposition(Grease apart!) ,such as Days Of Heaven, and Reeve shot to super stardom.
It's rather ironic then, that Reeve stepped down from Pretty Woman , without barely a whimper, 12 years later in 90', allowing Gere to take over.

So it's not just the type casting that is an issue.....it's the timing(or chronology) of it too.
STM was practically the first film Reeve did!---his appearance in Gray Lady Down was almost negligable.
You could argue, and some did, that the only way was down for Reeve after Supes....at least in commercial terms.

To be fair even Di Caprio's flicks since Titanic, have been no where near as commercially successful as Titanic!
But he has still chosen more wisely than Reeve did , ultimately.
To be fair though, I actually think that , Monsignor apart, DeathTrap, Somewhere In Time and The Bostonions were excellent artistic choices(if not neccessarily commercial ones).
And interestingly,Reeve did say that if Monsignor had been edited differently....that there was a respectfully good film hidden inside there(unlike SIV---lol!).
So the early 80s were good for Reeve , I think.
Something went a bit haywire after The Aviator though.....and from the late 80s onwards.
This of course coincided with Reeve's divorce from Exton.....so maybe some personal stuff was impinging on his ability to decipher good projects from bad ones.....SIV included!

Of course George Reeves initiated his incarnation of Supes much later into his career, and still fell into the typecasting loophole.
So the same thing could have happened to Reeve too I guess.

If you look at the years in which the commercially successful films that Reeve turned down, came out in.....and cross reference them with the films that he did choose to do in the same time frame it makes for some interesting observations....my own opinions of course!

1981:
Turned down Body Heat and American Gigolo in favour of SII(which he was contractually obliged to do).
Artistically and commercially correct.

1984:
Turned down Romancing The Stone and Splash in favour of The Bostonians.
Artistically correct, commercially incorrect.

1987:
Turned down Lethal Weapon and Fatal Attraction in favour of Street Smart.
Artistically and commercially incorrect.

Would love to have seen Reeve in Fatal Attraction....Glen Close was a friend.....would have been interesting to see their on screen chemistry.

Reeve's looks make it hard to picture him with a dark side (imo). I think he could have played a lawyer who got suckered (Body Heat) but he seems wrong for many of the other parts. I do think he was hilarious in his supporting part in Switching CHannels (though it's a pity that he didn't get a chance to play off of Michael Caine who had originally been cast in the Burt Reynold's role)- but outside of "Superman" and "Somewhere in Time", it's a pity that he didn't find more signature parts that he felt comfortable with.

There is an interview where Reeve claims that footage was shot with Michael Cain for Switching Channels....before Cain had to depart for the unholy disaster that was Jaws IV(gives SIV a run for it's money!).
So if Switching Channels ever makes it to blu ray, they might reveal some of that footage in the extras section.
IMHO Reeve and Cain had excellent chemistry, as seen in Death Trap.
But watching Switching Channels(I have the DVD), it kinda makes me wonder how Reeve would have paired up with Kathleen Turner in Romancing The Stone.
Of course , after the fact , it's hard to picture anyone else other than Micky Douglas play Jack T Colton , ....but it's another role which I think Reeve could have excelled in.
As for Somewhere In Time , it's surprising to see Ebert and Siskel give Reeve's performance  a thumbs down at the time of it's theatrical release.
But as ever , a lot of critics had a hard time divorcing Reeve from Superman(which, given Reeve's awe inspiring performance, was undertandable).
In fact Ebert says:
"It kind of looked like he(Reeve) has another suit(Supes) on underneath the suit he was wearing!"
Goto 11:25



So instead of judging Reeve for his performance(which I personally think was excellent), Ebert judged him for the way he looked!(i.e Richard Collier bore more than a passing resemblance to Clark Kent or Supes).

Totally unfair in my book and poor movie analysis on the part of Ebert(in this instance at least).

[Metallo]

Oct 15, 2021 12:03:56 GMT -5 dejan said:

Sept 20, 2021 0:06:16 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Reeve's looks make it hard to picture him with a dark side (imo). I think he could have played a lawyer who got suckered (Body Heat) but he seems wrong for many of the other parts. I do think he was hilarious in his supporting part in Switching CHannels (though it's a pity that he didn't get a chance to play off of Michael Caine who had originally been cast in the Burt Reynold's role)- but outside of "Superman" and "Somewhere in Time", it's a pity that he didn't find more signature parts that he felt comfortable with.

There is an interview where Reeve claims that footage was shot with Michael Cain for Switching Channels....before Cain had to depart for the unholy disaster that was Jaws IV(gives SIV a run for it's money!).
So if Switching Channels ever makes it to blu ray, they might reveal some of that footage in the extras section.
IMHO Reeve and Cain had excellent chemistry, as seen in Death Trap.
But watching Switching Channels(I have the DVD), it kinda makes me wonder how Reeve would have paired up with Kathleen Turner in Romancing The Stone.
Of course , after the fact , it's hard to picture anyone else other than Micky Douglas play Jack T Colton , ....but it's another role which I think Reeve could have excelled in.
As for Somewhere In Time , it's surprising to see Ebert and Siskel give Reeve's performance  a thumbs down at the time of it's theatrical release.
But as ever , a lot of critics had a hard time divorcing Reeve from Superman(which, given Reeve's awe inspiring performance, was undertandable).
In fact Ebert says:
"It kind of looked like he(Reeve) has another suit(Supes) on underneath the suit he was wearing!"
Goto 11:25



So instead of judging Reeve for his performance(which I personally think was excellent), Ebert judged him for the way he looked!(i.e Richard Collier bore more than a passing resemblance to Clark Kent or Supes).

Totally unfair in my book and poor movie analysis on the part of Ebert(in this instance at least).

I think Caine in Switching Channels would have made for a better movie. He was just better in films like that than Burt Reynolds was. Besides Reynolds and Turner hated each other so at least things would have been more civil with Caine.

Douglas and Turner had a great chemistry so I’d hate if that had been messed with. They even played off each other well in War Of The Roses.

I loved Siskel and Ebert but even they had some bad takes and got hung up on the most trivial things sometimes. Siskel’s stubbornness on not giving any other Bond films a chance because they didn’t have Connerys Bond always annoyed the heII out of me. He simply wasn’t being an objective reviewer there because he couldn’t get past his own biases.

[crazy_asian_man]

Yeah... Siskel/Ebert weren't gospel for me on movies--- but I loved the format and the personality with it.
Without the internet, it was neat to see a clip or two from the movie and at least two opinions.

WHen they had guest reviewers, it didn't feel quite right.

[dejan]

Metallo and CAM

Here is a rather interesting interview Reeve did for the press junket for Death Trap in 82'.
He reveals some of the motivation for turning down American Gigolo.
I thought Reeve rejected Gigolo  because he was locked up finishing  SII ( aswell as shooting Somewhere In Time).
In fact he disagreed with the subject matter-hence his lack of interest  for the project.

[dejan]

Nov 9, 2021 13:30:51 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Yeah... Siskel/Ebert weren't gospel for me on movies--- but I loved the format and the personality with it.
Without the internet, it was neat to see a clip or two from the movie and at least two opinions.

WHen they had guest reviewers, it didn't feel quite right.

Here in the UK we had a rather pretentious chap called Barry Norman.
Here is his rather disparaging review of STM in 78'.
But he does praise Reeve's performance.
He then goes onto say Reeve is the 2nd best newcomer in 1978.....behind the Oranguatan that featured In Eastwood's Every Which way But Loose!

What a prick!

[crazy_asian_man]

Nov 10, 2021 10:27:03 GMT -5 dejan said:

Metallo and CAM

Here is a rather interesting interview Reeve did for the press junket for Death Trap in 82'.
He reveals some of the motivation for turning down American Gigolo.
I thought Reeve rejected Gigolo  because he was locked up finishing  SII ( aswell as shooting Somewhere In Time).
In fact he disagreed with the subject matter-hence his lack of interest  for the project.

I like Paul Shrader's work- usually of dark characters trying to find redemption of sorts- but I don't think Reeve's strengths really work out the best in playing darker characters. I could be wrong, but I think he made the right choice turning that one down.

[crazy_asian_man]

Nov 10, 2021 10:31:17 GMT -5 dejan said:

Nov 9, 2021 13:30:51 GMT -5 crazy_asian_man said:

Yeah... Siskel/Ebert weren't gospel for me on movies--- but I loved the format and the personality with it.
Without the internet, it was neat to see a clip or two from the movie and at least two opinions.

WHen they had guest reviewers, it didn't feel quite right.

Here in the UK we had a rather pretentious chap called Barry Norman.
Here is his rather disparaging review of STM in 78'.
But he does praise Reeve's performance.
He then goes onto say Reeve is the 2nd best newcomer in 1978.....behind the Oranguatan that featured In Eastwood's Every Which way But Loose!

What a prick!

Usually those kinds of guys want the negative attention by being an arse. Fortunately, they usually fade into the background soon enough.

At the same time, I have to admit it's easy to get into verbally bashing a Hollywood performer - I'm certainly not innocent of taking jabs at Richard Lester for what he did on SII... but, yeah, I need to be better...