I wouldn't consider them to be an apt comparison. DeNiro and Pacino were stars who were also widely respected actors, and their problem these days is that their feature film acting careers are secondary for their interests. DeNiro is busy producing movies and his Tribeca film festival and Pacino is off playing theatre. Trust me you think any filmmaker, established and new, would turn them down? Ridiculous. I think they're at the Marlon Brando stage where working movies are now a hobby, not the profession.

Oldman, as loved and admired as he is, was never a star. At best a name, but not a star. Not his fault or anybody's really I suppose, it's just boils down to luck and timing. Also he's still working the movies for a living, hell he just signed up for the ROBOCOP remake.

(What I mean by "luck and timing," look in comparison at Johnny Depp. He was following the same career trajectory, then he did that Pirates movie which made him a star. Or more recently Mark Ruffalo, a guy who previously earned two Oscar acting nominations, but Joe Public couldn't pick him out of a police line-up, much less be considered a star. Yet he was the break-out star from THE AVENGERS.)



I liked Peter Berg's THE KINGDOM too, a solidly entertaining "smart" popcorn thriller. All which doesn't describe Berg's recent BATTLESHIP.

NO COUNTRY I'll always remember for having one of the more fascinating screening crowd reactions I've been to. When that particular plot turn happens, the movie lost half the audience, and the other half were split 50/50 between those hoping for some sort of payoff and the rest were digging this.

Then when the movie suddenly cuts to black, some guy in the back yelled "That's it?!?"