Rachel McAdams Tagged Articles at Cinematical

In this time of economic uncertainty and the potential evaporating of the old, reliable Hollywood star system, some math nerds may have saved the jobs of ten lucky actresses. Forbes Magazine has recently completed its annual list of female stars that provide the most bang for the buck. Their poll process is pretty complex. To qualify, actors must have appeared in at least three movies over the past five years that opened on 500 screens or more. Someone then adds up and averages the actors' salary on each film, each film's budget and each film's final gross. This year's winner: Naomi Watts, who earned $44 for each $1 she was paid. Despite starring in interesting movies like The Painted Veil, Funny Games and Eastern Promises, it looks as if Watts' place on the list was snagged mostly by King Kong, which earned $550 million worldwide.

Earlier this summer, reshoot rumors were thick around Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. One of the more believable ones was that Brad Pitt was stepping in to make an appearance as Moriarty, though it was clouded in so much "Pitt must save Ritchie!" hyperbole that it was almost impossible to believe. As always, there seems to have been some truth to the tabloid rumors, because The Hollywood Reporter says Warner Bros is already prepping more Holmes, and Pitt is in talks to play the detective's legendary adversary, Moriarty.

While neither Ritchie, Pitt, or producer Joel Silver will comment on whether Pitt already makes a shadowy appearance in the upcoming film. Those who have read the script say that Moriarty does appear, but is all mysterious and silhouetted, and it's impossible to see who he really is.

As Pitt debates whether or not he wants to pit brainpower and martial arts against the elementary Robert Downey Jr., the studio has brought on Kieran and Michele Mulroney, the team behind their Justice League: Mortal project to pen the script. Though nothing is official yet, THR notes "much of the talent," notably Downey, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, and Ritchie are expected to return. (Mark Strong isn't mentioned. Spoiler or no surprise?) It's worth noting that if Pitt signs on and the line-up remains as is, there's only one native Brit in the entire cast of this very English classic.

Is it as easy as 'men love action, women love romance'? Sci-fi thriller District 9 was the big winner at the box office, as Eugene Novikov reported earlier, taking in nearly twice as much as romantic drama The Time Traveler's Wife. Variety said District 9 drew "largely on the strength of males," while our reviewer Jeffrey M. Anderson said "no guy is going to want to sit through [The Time Traveler's Wife]. However, if you're a chick, the movie mostly works." Did couples head to multiplexes together, blow an air kiss, and then head their separate ways to different movies?

I saw both movies at advance press screenings, and so I didn't get a feel for how audiences in general might have been divided. Personally, I loved, loved, loved District 9 ("hellaciously entertaining," I wrote in part.) On the other hand, I mostly agree with Jeff Anderson's assessment that The Time Traveler's Wife is dripped in "soft, gooey gauze." Oh, and since I didn't feel the movie was particularly new or fresh, I didn't think Rachel McAdams' comments on The Daily Show really "spoiled" the plot twists, which, in any event, are telegraphed well in advance.

But I'm curious now about how all you movie-going couples handled the decision-making process. Did the ladies get together and leave the dudes behind to indulge in the gooey romance of The Time Traveler's Wife? Did the men go "woof, woof" and race off to see things go boom (with unexpected intelligence) in District 9? Take our poll and let us know! Feel free to elaborate in the comments section on how you decided what to watch. And a more general query: are you tired of being defined by your sex when it comes to movie-watching?

It's actually kind of amazing how often the time-travel subgenre marries to romance stories. Longing to return to a simpler past or hoping for a brighter future are staples in any love affair, especially tragic ones. (Not to mention the similarity between a clock's ticking and a human heartbeat.) Just look at Somewhere in Time (1980), Peggy Sue Got Married (1986), The Love Letter (1998), Happy Accidents (2000), Kate & Leopold (2001) and The Lake House (2006) for a few interesting examples. What I don't understand is the very soft, goopy tone that most of these movies automatically adopt, with the exception of Brad Anderson's dark, tense Happy Accidents and James Mangold's standard-issue romcom Kate & Leopold.

Consider the new film The Time Traveler's Wife. It comes complete with a screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin, who won an Oscar for his hugely successful sci-fi romance Ghost (1990) as well as writing very twisty sci-fi stories like Jacob's Ladder. In its favor, Ghost had a very amusing supporting performance by Whoopi Goldberg, and some action and suspense scenes, as well as a show-stopping love scene in front of a pottery wheel, set to the tune of the Righteous Brothers' "Unchained Melody." In other words, it pleased most of the male dates who were forced to see it. So Rubin turns in his new screenplay, which was based on Audrey Niffenegger's 2003 novel. And, who knows? It may have once been funny like Ghost or twisty like Jacob's Ladder. Then comes director Robert Schwentke, a German transplanted to Hollywood whose last film was the generic thriller Flightplan (2005).

I understand why actors and actresses go on TV shows and promote their upcoming movies, but at some point prior to their appearance, you might think someone might say, "Hey, by the way, let's not reveal these details because they kinda spoil the entire film." Unfortunately, no one said that to Rachel McAdams yesterday when she appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, as it only took, like, one or two questions before the girl just opened up and spewed plot points from The Time Traveler's Wife as if someone injected her with a dose of truth juice.

Don't get me wrong, McAdams seems like a sweet girl and all, but c'mon! Even Jon Stewart tried to stop her from ruining everything by doling out his usual shtick, but the girl kept going and going -- it was seriously a complete trainwreck. Recently at Comic-Con, Cameron Diaz did something similar while sitting on a panel for The Box, giving away a major twist in that film, which incited a debate between a bunch of folks on Twitter wondering why these people aren't prepped before these types of appearances. And if they are prepped, shouldn't they be smart enough to know what to say and what not to say?

Which brings us to an interesting topic: How much or how little should an actor, actress or filmmaker be able to talk about their film while promoting it on television? Usually at a press junket they'll open up about everything because everyone there has seen the movie, but what sort of adjustments should these folks make when they go on, say, The Daily Show? Was McAdams wrong for giving away all those plot points, or are we just making a big deal out of nothing?

Watch the video after the jump ...

Yesterday at the press conference for Sherlock Holmes, Robert Downey Jr. recalled that Rachel McAdams had called Sherlock Holmes "a love story between Watson and Holmes." Downey explained, "Well, actually what it is ... it's circumstantial homosexuality." So, in case you were wondering if they'd played up the banter between the duo from the books, there you go. Fairly elementary.

Actually, that quote aside, Downey says the adaptation is extremely true to the source material. "My take is what the puritans would expect ... if the puritans know what they're talking about. He never wore a deerstalker cap, except like maybe once, for a second, except even then it was described differently. The long pipe was something that Gillette used so he didn't obscure his face on the stage. So we're not using any of those and we're staying true to the Doyle material."

That's not to say that Sherlock doesn't have his vices. In the books he would turn to cocaine when he was bored between cases. We asked producer Joel Silver if they were including that, given Downey's history, and he said, "Not really. But I mean, he does have ... issues." Then he gave us a wry smile and a wink. So who knows. Maybe he's addicted to something innocuous now. Like toffee.

You'll never hear me say a nasty thing about Robert Downey Jr., as I have a lot of respect for the man and a lot of appreciation for the films he's done ... but having said that, I cannot help but express the following opinion: The trailer for his new movie looks like, well, like no Sherlock Holmes story I've ever seen. Obviously one can never judge an unfinished film by the quality of its promotional materials, but if this clip is what we can expect from the whole of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, I'm ... well, I'm still interested. But now highly skeptical. And a little shocked.

I guess my main question is this: If your goal is to make a Victorian-era action comedy, and that sounds good to me, why must it be called Sherlock Holmes? (I'd suggest Sherlock Holmes and the Deluge of Weird Changes.) I'll leave it to the experts to pick the specific nits, but I'm betting the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories didn't have quite so many gunfights, boxing matches, explosions, and crotch jokes. At this point the thing looks like Young Sherlock Holmes meets The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vs. Van Helsing: At World's End ... which, I'll admit, could still be a lot of fun.

The first trailer will be attached to Terminator: Salvation. Will we all start drooling like they did after ShoWest? I hope so. I really want this film to meet my expectations.

The cast for the cheekily titled Morning Glory (aka "that film where Harrison Ford is going to try and be funny!") really is shaping up nicely. According to The Hollywood Reporter, they've nabbed themselves the second Nite Owl, Patrick Wilson.

"The film that Ford is going to try and by funny in" centers on an up-and-coming news producer played by Rachel McAdams. She has to save a struggling morning show, and get its antagonistic anchors (Ford and Diane Keaton) under control.

Trying to save McAdams from losing the will to live is Wilson, who will play her boyfriend. While Wilson is clearly trying to earn some comedy cred (Morning Glory is the third comedy he's signed for, he's also got The Baster and Barry Munday in the works),
I sincerely hope there's a little more to his part than just "the boyfriend." Wilson is quite talented, and playing a boyfriend, even to McAdams, seems like a waste of his charm. Then again, how many actresses have been stuck in such a thankless part? Maybe the tide is turning.

There really is a lot of talent here on both sides of the camera: Roger Michell is directing from a script by Aline Brosh McKenna, and J.J. Abrams is producing with his Bad Robot banner. Let's hope they can bring us a film of the witty, fun Ford (yes, he does exist) and not another Hollywood Homicide.