MovieChat Forums > The Resident (2011) Discussion > Hillary Swank - Big Mistake For Hammer

Hillary Swank - Big Mistake For Hammer

posted 14 years ago by josephbrando
29 replies | jump to latest

Trying to buy an instant audience by putting Oscar winner Hillary Swank in one of its first revival films was a big mistake for Hammer Films. Horror fans, for the most part, don't like horror films with Oscar winners in them because it usually means one thing - the film is not scary. And award winning Oscar fans, for the most part, do not like horror films. It was nice that they put Christopher Lee in this but Swank was a HUGE mistake and that's why it is probably going right to video. Seems they are making the same mistake with their next film by putting Harry Potter in "The Woman in Black".

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

By who's rule book?

[–] fightingirishfighter 14 years ago

film was very good

[–] tomislav888 14 years ago

you failed

[–] Cinnyaste 14 years ago

Rigidity and inflated sense of self as spokesman for all of humanity. STFU, Dipstick.

[–] rvenkatakarthik 14 years ago

Its a good film with nice little scares 3.5/5!

[–] movieman-227 14 years ago

IMDB says that it was in "limited" U.S. release beginning on February 18th.
Does anybody know which cities it opened in? Did it open anywhere??? I know that it didn't play NYC or there would have been a review in the Times. I'm pretty sure that not even Variety published a review.
Is Swank's career in THIS much trouble that she's started headlining direct-to-DVD horror schlock?
Yikes. I guess "Amelia" was a career-breaker after all.

[–] knight_sentinel 14 years ago

I think it was shown to be screened basically for critics in the U.S..

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

[–] josephbrando 14 years ago

that's why it skipped the theaters and is going directly to video I guess huh?

[–] nlole 14 years ago

Anthony Hopkins??

And then depression set in.

[–] kmartin173 14 years ago

I can't think of too many better options for a movie with this much nudity/partial nudity. She's in fantastic shape.

[–] zarathustra2k1 14 years ago

Shame she looks like she was designed by a committee...

I have opinions of my own, but I don't always agree with them - George Bush

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

She's fit, but not really hot. Not really the right person for the role.

[–] Max_Planck 14 years ago

As one of the film's producers, it seems that Hilary Swank is under the impression that there is something very sexy about Hilary Swank. She's mistaken. Going to the gym every day doesn't alter the fact that you resemble Mister Ed.

She, and everyone else in this movie, was badly miscast. And, sadly, that includes Christopher Lee.

[–] evikeaz 12 years ago

I agree...I'm not sure where it comes off she's attractive. I saw ps I love you and couldn't imagine her in that romantic role either. It's hard to get past how this guy obsessed over her. I know,I know..looks aren't everything but to be cast in this movie or the other one they are.

[–] emailaddress-600-852845 10 years ago

You're deluded. She may not be a perfect 10 but is hotter than the other 90% of the women out there, half of which with worse looks are still attractive enough that if the wrong psycho were around then they'd be stalked.

Perhaps your problem is you never get out of the house so all you see are the beautiful people on TV instead of noticing that hey, the average american woman looks like a dog turd compared to her.

PERFECT? No, but then if she were then you'd probably be whining about that being unrealistic instead.

The truth is that they weren't miscast. You only noticed because the storyline was too shallow for a plot that has been worn out by now. It needed some fresh twists to keep your mind occupied more.

[–] mpadpy 10 years ago

Looks are in the eyes of the beholder and here is a perfect example of it.

C I Am Not a 'Chicken shiet'

[–] Hancockenstein 14 years ago

i havn'teven seen it yet and i disagree

[–] fatclyde_uk 14 years ago

As Hilary Swank was one of the producers, I can't see Hammer having much option than to put her in.
I do like Hilary, but this film was utter cr@p. 2/10

[–] jonbeckett 14 years ago

I can't agree with you. There is a bias against horror films being nominated for Oscars, but as to the point that a horror with an oscar winner is percieved as not being scary, I give you Gregory Peck in 'The Omen', George C. Scott in 'The Changeling', John Houseman in 'The Fog', Fred Astaire in 'Ghost Story' etc etc. Hell, it did Hammer no harm having Bette Davis, a double Oscar winner in the classic psychological thriller/horror 'The Nanny'.

Wake me up before you Monster A Go Go

[–] josephbrando 14 years ago

Notice that all the films you mentioned are at least 30 years old and they are exceptions to the rule. For every successful horror movie you name that has a big-name star in it, I can give you 20 that don't have those type of actors in them - Friday the 13th, Halloween, Nightmare On Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Last House On The Left, Night Of The Living Dead, The Evil Dead, The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, Psycho, The Exorcist - etc... etc... are all considered the cream of the crop, created sub-genres in the genre and inspired a million copycats including most of the examples you mentioned which were Hollywoods' safe answer to the success of a scary movie. While some of these films' stars went on to become upper-tier actors, they certainly weren't household names at the time of their release. Unfortunately, I can't think of an actress in this day and age as excellent and versatile as Bette Davis - but her work with Hammer as you said was more in the vein of psychological thriller/black comedy, not Horror. This movie, The Resident, sucked and was the same as a thousand other made-for-TV movies shown on Lifetime on a daily basis. I didn't realize that's what they were going for. It sucked and that's one of the reasons they couldn't even find a distributor for it and it went quietly right to home video.

[–] knight_sentinel 14 years ago

She's one of the executive producers, if she wanted to be in it she could, it's an executive decision, she could have cast someone else, most of the movies where she's an executive producer don't do well financially, they actually lose money, but some of them keep her nominated for Oscars, but the films don't make back the money it coast to produce them.

She may have to start doing what other actors do, make a big budget film, and have the studio back a project that she wants to do but may not make a lot of money, Denzel Washington got his film "The great Debaters" made by first agreeing to do "American Gangster". he stated you have to do the big money maker films to get a studio to back an actors' choices for a personal projects.

The film was alright.

Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.

[–] Prismark10 13 years ago

She probably got paid a lot to be in it and was given a producer title but for a recent film its gone to tv rather quickly.

Its that man again!!

[–] knight_sentinel 13 years ago

Nope, she wasn't given a producer title she has a production company and it was produced in association with her production company, and if I'm not mistaken almost every film she has co-produced has flopped. Since she is co-producing these projects she's taking a smaller salary and trying to make more on the back end, but the films haven't made any money.

The movie itself was never in theaters, except in a few European countries, in the U.S. and other parts of the world it was a released direct to DVD. I actually thought I had missed it or something because I only saw the ad for the DVD, after I came over here to see when it was released the release dates showed it was a DVD release only, with a few exceptions where it would be show in theaters in Europe, and I don't think it stayed too long.

She co=produced "Freedom Writers" and that made back double what it cost to make but even that was total world wide sales.

She produced "Amelia" which cost around 40 million to make, and it only made a little over 19 million.

She also produced "Conviction" it cost about $12 million and made only a little over 9 million.

Those budgets don't include whatever the studio shelled out to market those films, but since they most likely only had to pay her for whatever she agreed to be paid to act she didn't get any back end profits.

I think her problem is that she keeps trying to just make films that will get her an Oscar instead of just doing a real good acting job on top of doing a good film. I've seen some bad films but the actors were extremely good in them.

This film was alright, I wouldn't say it was bad but I wouldn't sit and watch it again either. Hopefully she'll have better luck with some other her other projects, I actually like Ms. Swank.

"Nothing tastes as good as the man I married. It's the sauce that does it." - Omaima Nelson