Natalie Portman Sets First Post-Oscar Roles, Back To Back Terrence Malick Films: Berlin

COMMENTS (16)

• I wonder what this means for her involvement in “Thor 2″?

  Comment by DFT — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 9:30am PST  Reply to this post

  • Probably not much. I doubt either of these roles in the Malick-films are leading roles, so she probably won’t spend too much time shooting these BUT even if she won’t be available this year (unlikely), Thor 2 has a 2013 November release date, so it might start filming as late as early 2013. Hemsworth will be busy during the summer, too, he has two tentpole films to promote and then he might shoot ‘Rush’ with Ron Howard. My guess ? Portman wraps the second Malick film around October and starts Thor 2 around November/January.

    Comment by phantom — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 10:39am PST  Reply to this post

• I’m sure she’ll fit it in. The sequel doesn’t hit until November of next year.

  Comment by CLS — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 10:32am PST  Reply to this post

• Malick takes six to seven years between films and them BAM five in a 3 year period. It’s good to see is all.

  Comment by Not Complaining but... — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 10:53am PST  Reply to this post

• OMG I know she already won an Academy Award but why work with a director whose films are a substitute for Sleeping Pills?

  Comment by Stan — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 11:00am PST  Reply to this post

  • …for you.

    Comment by sixamsedna — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 4:05pm PST  Reply to this post

  • OMG maybe because she likes doing good films LOL LMAO FWIW

    Comment by roddymartindale — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 6:45pm PST  Reply to this post

  • It’s very simple Stan. Don’t watch Malick films and stick to playing beer pong with your buddies. You can watch your 2 Fast 2 Furious and Jennifer’s Body DVDs instead of torturing yourself with Mr. Malick’s films.

    Comment by pete — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 7:53pm PST  Reply to this post

• I realy hope she doesn’t do crap like Thor.

  Comment by chort — Wednesday February 8, 2012 @ 9:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• She’s already done Thor. The other post-ers are talking about the sequel. If it wasn’t for movies like Thor, Natalie Portman couldn’t afford to do art-house pieces like Terrence Malick’s films. I pass on seeing Malick films since The Thin Red Line, which proved that a war movie could in fact be boring.

  Comment by Shatter24 — Thursday February 9, 2012 @ 1:33pm PST  Reply to this post

• I like how the Malick fans accuse those of us who do not like his films, as being below them and Beer Pong playing types who only watch films like 2 Fast 2 Furious.

  No. That is not the case.

  We don’t like Malick’s films because they are so far up his own a** and are nothing but a palate on which he continues to highlight the amount of love he has for himself by his self indulgent ‘filmmaking’ which consists of nothing but photography with no story line in sight.

  It’s pretentious filmmaking at it’s worst, and as a result, is drawing pretentious actors as a result.

  Comment by Simon Says — Thursday February 9, 2012 @ 1:52pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Um.

    Who is “we”?

    I love how people like you always preface your opinions with “we”, as if everyone thinks the same way you do.

    If you don’t like Malick’s films, that’s fine – but to call people who like them “pretentious” and to insult them is JUST as bad as those you seem to be condemning for mocking YOU for not liking them.

    Not to mention – what do you mean, “no story”? What the hell are you talking about? Probably the only film you could even REMOTELY make that case for is “The Tree of Life”.

    So – since, I’m assuming, you have you seen EVERY Terrence Malick film, as you dismiss his entire filmography, I’d like to read a point-by-point critical analysis of every one of his films, as you seem to be claiming that every single one is worthless – which, by the way, would put you in the minority of pretty much everyone who loves, studies and appreciated movies – but that’s fine. I’d like to know why you think that EVERY one of his films is “pretentious” – and why you use that word. I’d also like to see your evidence that there is “no story” to be found in any of his films.

    My guess is that you’ve seen maybe one or two of his movies. I could be wrong.

    Better yet – I’d like to see a list of your top ten favorite movies you’ve ever seen. That would give me an idea of why you think Terrence Malick’s films, like “Badlands”, for example, are “pretentious”.

    Comment by Mark — Thursday February 9, 2012 @ 10:13pm PST  Reply to this post

    • P.S. From your comments, Simon, I’m assuming that you think films like Kubrick’s “2001″ or “Barry Lyndon”, are “pretentious”. If that’s the case, I would really think about checking yourself out for Attention Deficit Disorder, as your problem would be that you have a hard time with films that don’t move at a fast pace.

      Comment by Mark — Thursday February 9, 2012 @ 10:17pm PST  Reply to this post

• I hate it when people judge movies based on what they see , and not the context their made it.

  Comment by Derek — Friday February 10, 2012 @ 5:27am PST  Reply to this post

• His movies, to me, are more like a painting, where each viewer comes up with his own interpretation. For me, a deeply religious person, the father is the only example of god that a son often has. There is a point when a boy realizes that his father is imperfect. And that the world isn’t as clearly defined as he thought. At that point a son will question the nature of evil in the world and question the goodness of God. I love exciting popcorn movies as much as anyone but leave room for something more, just in case it comes around as it did with T.O.L.

  Comment by Dave — Thursday March 1, 2012 @ 10:33pm PST  Reply to this post

  • Well said Dave. Couldn’t agree more

    Comment by Anonymous — Friday March 2, 2012 @ 7:09am PST  Reply to this post