Okay, in the trivia section it says: "Edward Norton made it clear that his participation is a result of contractual obligation, not choice. He signed a three movie deal with Paramount, of which Primal Fear (1996), his breakthrough movie, was the first. He kept dismissing scripts for the other two, until Paramount coerced him into accepting a role in The Italian Job."
Anyone know why he didn't want to do this film? It seems he must have gone to a lot of trouble to "make it clear". I thought it was a fun movie and he did a great job.
"I'm the best there is at what I do, and what I do best isn't very nice." -- Wolverine
First of all, I really enjoyed the movie. As far of this genre goes, it keeps your attention and is entertaining. Secondly, I don't see Norton as any type of superstar. Norton signed a contract with provisions to work. If he is so wonderful, he could have had the contract drawn up to allow any movie refusal. I think he is full of himself. His character in this movie was a good one for him, as a kind of weenie, self rightous, bastard.
If he didnt want to do this movie you certainly wouldnt know it. He had total commitment to this role as any other. In fact I think this was the movie that made me a fan. He was the most interesting thing in this movie. But I dont think any actor would show their dislike for a role obvious while filming just to stick it to the producer. They have their own image as an actor to worry about
I find it funny how much hate Norton gets for participating in a movie that I'm pretty sure he thought was *beep* to begin with.
Before the fingerpointing starts, why not start with the main start M. Wahlberg for bas tardizing what was once an iconic film of its time. The guy hasn't produced any other films other than wannabes of current successful films such as:
Norton is the only reason i watched this flim. I didn't really enjoy anything in this movie else except for Norton and charlize theron .(whis is something worth watching.) Has anyone seen The illusionist. If not just go and watch that film before before Branding Norton as one dimensional. Surely u didn't watch many of Norton's movies like Red Dragon, Fight Club, American history X , more recently Pride and Glory and the Icredible Hulk and watch only one or two movies and judge. He brings a lot of energy and charisma whenever he is on the set and he is loose actor with natural acting talent. He can do all ypes of roles wheater it is a hero or a villian or a comedian etc. I have seen whalbergs movies, apart from the Boogie Nights, he did't impresse me in another films. I'm sure you can blame it on writing but in reality Mark Whalberg is a mediocore actor compared to norton. I like Jason statham, although, i didn't like his character in this movie.
It is just another second rate comedy film. (well heist comedy film i would call it.) with a terrible script. Poor dialouge writing for Norton's character especially . No wonder he didn't like it. The only problem in this movie is poor dialouge and story writing.
But anyway in the end Norton is still a great actor, who doesn't do movies just for money like most of the actors doand he doesn't do many movies per annum as he is also involvedin Energy related projects and shows.
after playing huge roles in american history x and fight club, would you want to be in this movie? It was just a long infomercial for the mini cooper, im sure he hated the script.
I don't know if Norton is full of himself. I know he can make things difficult for the studios when he's irked, such as his refusal to do promotion for The Incredible Hulk just because Marvel cut some scenes he had written. I also know the director of American History X tried having his name removed from the movie because Norton somehow got access or rights to re-edit the movie.
I like Norton. I think he's a good actor. And I think it's fair to say that he wasn't given much to work with in The Italian Job, which was a fun but ultimately superficial movie in which his character was supposed to be this dastardly villain but you never found him to be remotely intimidating or effective (which was as much the script's fault as it was the performance). IMO Charlize Theron was the only actor in the movie that gave a worth-while performance.
BUT...as a professional, sometimes you just have to suck it up and take it in the chin. It sucks, but that's how it goes. He could have kept his contempt quiet and just tried to make the movie as successful as possible.
And it's not like TIJ was the worst movie Norton has ever done. Not even close.
It sounds to me like there were some much better movies he wanted to be apart of and that he considered would be more enjoyable. Also, even though he signed a contract, he probably believed he would have more creative control over what he did. As for being up himself... i rlly hope not, cause he is a great actor.
I would look somewhere else than imdb if you REALLY want to know, because they let anyone add to the Trivia section.
I'm not saying that he didn't do this out of a contractual obligation, but what he could have possibly said quickly in an interview could have been posted to the Trivia section as a bigger deal than it might have been.