Alfonso Cuaron on Angelina Jolie, ‘Gravity’: ‘Something happens, you part ways’


Do you know that Alfonso Cuaron is probably going to win the Best Director Oscar for Gravity? I think he’s going into the March 2nd ceremony as one of the biggest favorites, having won all of the major awards for Best Director, including the Directors Guild Award. I still haven’t seen Gravity, but I assume that Cuaron’s peers have merely marveled at the technical skills employed to make the film. I’m also assuming that Gravity will pick up many of the big technical awards at the Oscars too – cinematography, editing, visual effects, production design, etc. And I’m fine with that. Just as long as 12 Years a Slave wins Best Picture.

Anyway, now that Gravity is such a huge hit and Cuaron is the favorite for the director Oscar, it’s interesting to take a moment of reflection to see how this film could have turned out differently. For one, Angelina Jolie was supposed to play the lead character (which ended up with Sandra Bullock). Robert Downey Jr. was supposed to play Clooney’s part. During a sit-down with THR, Cuaron discussed the casting snafu:

Angelina Jolie and Robert Downey Jr. almost starred in Gravity, but Jolie had to drop out of the project because of scheduling conflicts and Downey departed because the cramped physical choreography required to shoot the movie would not allow him to improvise, director Alfonso Cuaron told students at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles Feb. 12.

Cuaron explained how the movie ultimately came to star Sandra Bullock and George Clooney and consumed almost five years of his life. Cuaron spoke as the first guest in a new interview series, The Hollywood Masters, moderated by THR’s executive features editor, Stephen Galloway. T

“I thought I had written a small movie … just one character floating in space,” Cuaron said about the Warner Bros. best picture nominee, which has grossed $700 million internationally. “We started developing stuff [trying] to figure out the technology. And the luxury [was] that we could try many things. And part of that was conversations with actors. I had conversations with Angelina, but then she went to do one film, and then she was going to direct [Unbroken]. Something happens, you part ways.”

As for Downey, “It became very clear that, as we started to nail the technology, or narrow the technology, that was going to be a big obstacle for his performance. I think Robert is fantastic if you give him the freedom to completely breathe and improvise and change stuff. [But] we tried one of these technologies and it was not compatible. And, after that, we [had a] week that we pretended as if nothing was happening and then we talked and said, ‘This is not going to work. This is tough.'”

But Cuaron noted that when he talked with Downey, Gravity still had no start date. “It was not until some elements came into place that we could responsibly go to the studio and say, ‘We can set a start date,'” said Cuaron. “Then you can do offers, and that is when we went after Sandra [Bullock] and George [Clooney].”

[From THR]

For what it’s worth, I think Cuaron is being diplomatic about Angelina. Angelina was circling the film for months, and she kept turning it down and the studio kept coming back and offering her more and more money to do it. The gossip was that the studio thought that Gravity was a huge gamble and they wanted a huge name attached to the lead role before they figured out the financing. It was said by many “insiders” at the time that Angelina was the only actress anyone wanted. And then she turned them down for good and Sandra Bullock got the part. And the rest is film history, I guess. Considering how everything has turned out with Gravity, I do wonder if Angelina has any regrets about turning it down so many times. I have regrets on her behalf! This could have been the biggest film of her career.

As for RDJ… he’s just too sassy to play an astronaut, I guess.



Photos courtesy of WENN & Joe Alvarez.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

189 Responses to “Alfonso Cuaron on Angelina Jolie, ‘Gravity’: ‘Something happens, you part ways’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LadyMTL says:

    I honestly couldn’t see Angelina or RDJ in this movie, it just doesn’t seem like a good “fit.” I like both of them as actors but trying to visualize them in those roles just…kinda makes me laugh. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock were the absolute right choices, even if they weren’t the first choices.

    • That’s pretty much how I am with all movies. Unless the person was flat out AWFUL (which, I can sit through some pretty bad acting)–like Lindsey Lohan as Elizabeth Taylor awful–then I generally can’t picture anyone else in the role. Even if I didn’t like them in it. Weird, I think.

    • notpretentious says:

      I couldn’t agree with you more LadyMTL.

    • V4Real says:

      While I do undrstand what you ladies are saying I tend to think people can’t see someone else in a role after they already seen the film with the cast that played that part. Could you see Will Smith as Neo in The Matrix , he was the first choice. Could you see Molly Ringwald as Vivian in Pretty Woman, she was the first choice. What about Tom Hanks as Jerry MaGuire, John Travolta as Forrest Gump, Cruise in Footlose, Michelle Pfeiffer in Silence of The Lambs and Basic Instinct or Matt Damon in Avatar. Now that I have seen these actors in those roles I can’t see anyone else playing them.

      We had this discussion about Gravity, AJ, RDJ, Sandy and Clooney before. Most of us have seen Gravity but I think Angie could have done a much better job than Sandy. However, I think she could have only pulled it off if Cuaron gave her wriggle room. Sandy was so robotic and probably never went off script and that’s what Cuaron wanted.

      Actors turned down roles or get recast all the time. I think they are only making a big deal out of this because Gravity and Bullock are up for all these awards and Angie turned it down. It’s like they are trying to send a big FU to Angie by constantly bringing up that she was offered the role first. Honestly, I really don’t think AJ gives a shit about it.

      • Blue says:

        Didn’t she turn down this role to star in Maleficient or direct unbroken, I doubt she regrets making that decision regardless, she’s a smart woman who knows what she wants to do.

      • Liza Jane says:

        I agree a hundred percent! I like Sandra but most of the movie she spent giving little shrieks of I watched I remember thinking that surely real female astronauts don’t do that! I thought it was a very poor performance, George was just being George! It was technically clever but honestly? Very disappointing!

      • debbiedonothing says:

        I think it would have been a very different movie with Angelina and it would have been better IMO. Sandra was just Sandra being Sandra. Miss Congeniality in space. If she wins Best Actress for it, I will puke.

        With Angie, I would have taken the whole movie a lot more seriously. For me, all it had was a lot of really cool special effects and Clooney’s sexy voice.

      • Denise says:

        John Travolta as Forrest Gump?! BA HAHA HAHA!!!

      • FLORC says:

        Wow. I dind’t know all those actors were first picks.
        And I can totally see MP in Jodie fosters role. Or Cruise in Footloose. Absolutely.
        In fact John T. Is the only 1 that would seem out of place.

        If Bullock wins (and I doubt she will. Too much stiff competition and she already has an Oscar) It will be because there’s more they judge than how a film is perceived by fans. The sensory deprevation alone is the kind of physical and mental sacrifice the academy weighs in judging how an actor did service to their character.

        IMO I liked (not loved) gravity and feel Angelina would have been great in it.

    • littlestar says:

      I could see Angelina Jolie in the role, actually. RDJ however, I was surprised he was offered the role that George Clooney played. That definitely doesn’t seem like a fit to me.

    • TherapyCranes says:

      I agree. I like Jolie as a humanitarian but I don’t think she’s a great actress. Most of her films are pretty bad. I think Sandy as a person seems really lovely but I don’t really like her in most films either. HOWEVER I think she was amazing in Gravity. George was good in the movie as well but I really think Sandra nailed down the movie with her great acting.

      • DeeVine says:

        I think if Angelina was cast the movie will just lack credibility for me. She looks as much as an astronaut as Denise Richard as a scientist in that Bond movie. I think the movie was a hit because it was the Bullock Clooney combo.

  2. Lucy2 says:

    I don’t think Angelina would have been right for this at all. Things clearly worked out for the best.

    • Nikita says:

      thats just because you know the movie now, but if angelina had that part, you would probably say the same if the role was first for bullock. i think angelina would have been much better in that role. i love bullock but i honestly think shes too old for a role like that. why? her face didnt moved. i liked the movie i just coulndt fell for her because her face is frozen. she tries to look shooked but nothing moves. shes at an age when hollywoodactresses dont have an faceimpression anymore because of all that botox, it is what it is. to me, sandra is perfect but shes not an actress anymore, an actress can move her face. angelina still can move her face, of course, this will probably change with her age but its still better then sandras .

      • dizzylucy says:

        I don’t know about that. Personally I don’t care much for Jolie as an actress – in the right role I think she’s OK (Malificent looks good for her), but this in particular movie I just don’t see her as a good fit for the character/film. Apparently Marion Cotillard was considered and declined – I could see her in it more so than Jolie, or Natalie Portman, who was also offered the role.
        I could see RDJ in the Clooney role though. Though we never would have gotten the great Golden Globes joke about it then!

        I liked the movie, even though it was weak on story – to me it was an interesting experience to see, and technically quite an achievement.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        @dizzylucy, I wasn’t going to comment on this story, but WOW!

        I can totally see Marion Cotillard as the French Female Astronaut!

        “In The Near Future” France is a player in The International Space Program. That’d be cool, cool, cool!

    • SonjaMarmeladova says:

      Apart from Changeling, Angelina never really blew me away with her acting, Personally, I think she’s quite mediocre.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        @SonjaMarmeladova, although I enjoyed her work in ‘Girl Interuppted’, I agree. Ange is too frail to be credible as an astronaut.

        ‘Pushing Tin’ though was phenomenal; the chemistry between Angelina Jolie and Billy Bob Thorton was incredible! Uh, now that I think about it, I love Thorton’s entire body of work way more than Angie’s.

        IMO, Sandra Bullock was perfect for Gravity. She reminded me of the All American Girl Next Door Sally Ride by the way she carries herself and by their more than passing physical resemblance (except for the Botox). Perhaps Sandy’s offscreen life parallels Sally’s too.

        I would love to see Dr. Rides real story made into a movie that faithfully represented her personal life and quiet courage and determination.

  3. don't kill me i'm french says:

    she’s too beautiful and young to be a credible astronaut

    • toto says:

      I still stand by my word Gravity needed a story a good script .
      Sandra was not credible astronaut either , she was screeming like high school girl . i was watching speed in the space. She always survive like Ninja .

      In fact if you check many forms on gravity many people argued of why Sandra was sent there and what was her actual job.

      She drove chines shuttle without knowing chines FGS. lol

      Once i got chines tv with chines remote control it took me about 15 minutes to figure which is which and i got only few buttons assuming all buttons positions are universal standard.

      She was trained 6 months as astronauts and miraculously knew how to figure the buttons!

      • Paige says:

        Agree-this film is ridiculous. Everyone in the industry is enamored of the technology…bad script, no story, and yes bad acting.

      • don't kill me i'm french says:

        Gavity is a great exercice of style for me :it proves how great directing,score and editing can offset a tiny ridiculous script with plot holes
        Sandra Bullock is convincing even if her character is not credible (a depressive person CAN’T be astronaut) i buy better the idea that Bullock is astronaut than if the astronaut would be Jolie
        Clooney does Clooney

      • Miss M says:

        “In fact if you check many forms on gravity many people argued of why Sandra was sent there and what was her actual job. She drove chines shuttle without knowing chines FGS” Thank you for bringing up a couple of the flaws in this movie. By the way, wasn’t she trained for 6 months and always failed in the tests?! I would think NASA would be careful in choosing their crew to send to space…lol

      • Anne says:

        OMG, YES! Sandra’s character was a screaming ninny and the main reason I didn’t care for Gravity. I don’t know jack about NASA or chines or any of that, but I can’t imagine anyone who can’t keep it together in a crisis making it to a launch. Isn’t that what they’re trained for? I can’t imagine Angie playing this weak ninny role and think that’s why she didn’t. It didn’t have anything to do with scheduling.

      • Hmm says:

        Thank you!
        This movie was terrrrible. Good graphics does not a good movie make

      • Bingo. No one person has skills so rare that NASA would send up that person despite not being able to pass training. It’s easier to train someone for any civilian job than it is to train someone to become an astronaut. She was also mentally unstable. That wouldn’t fly in space because of how intensive it is under the best of circumstances.

    • V4real says:

      Angie is too young and too beautiful to be an astronaut;really? Angie is beautiful but she doesn’t look much younger than Sandy. AJ looks very mature for her 30’s.

      That being said what the director is leaving out is that the film switched from one studio to a different studio and that’s one of the reasons AJ dropped out.

      • don't kill me i'm french says:

        Sandra Bullock is a mature attractive woman whereas Angelina Jolie is a sex goddess

        like Carey Mulligan is too “bland” physically/not enough charismatic to be credible in THE GREAT GATSBY for example in my opinion

      • Sullivan says:

        I think Angelina is too beautiful for the role. Not that beautiful people can’t be astronauts. I think that it would be hard to stay focused on the story when so much of the film is a close-up of the character’s face. I might focus on her beauty, the way many focused on Sandra’s botoxed face.

        I think Jodie Foster would have been amazing in that role. Or Alfre Woodard.

      • Blue says:

        the way many focused on Sandra’s botoxed face.

        I don’t know why but this had me giggling for about 5 minutes, thanks :0)

      • Nikita says:

        @Sullivan, abosolutely my thoughts. i didnt realized before how much botoxed sandra is before i saw gravity. all i saw was her strange face. i liked the movie but i was bored with sandra, her face didnt moved, it was sad to watch. and i realy love sandra, i like all her movies but gravity was not good for her. i dont know who i would like to see in that role but angelina would have been better definetly imo.
        but the movie has no good story, just good pictures and thats why they needed a huge name and i guess thats what angelina thought of it too. they just wanted to use her name. and who comes after jolie? Bullock. there you have the list of hollywood. the 2 top woman in HW are jolie and bullock. and thats it for now.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        V4real, who wrote: “Angie is too young and too beautiful to be an astronaut;really? Angie is beautiful but she doesn’t look much younger than Sandy. AJ looks very mature for her 30′s. ”

        Now see? I look at the woman above and I see someone in her 30’s, around 34 or 35-years-old. There is no way Angelina Jolie looks 48-years-old or even near it; which also means she in no way looks older or the same age as Jennifer Aniston, who really ‘does’ look every bit of her 45-years.

        Where in the world is this ‘Angie looks so … old’ jazz coming from anyway? That seems to be the new talking point.

      • V4Real says:

        @Emma Please let’s not do this but if you must.

        Angie does not look 34, just stop it. I didn’t say she looked 48 either. I said she doesn’t look much younger than Sandra. Nor did I say Bullock looked her age of 48.

        “Where in the world is this ‘Angie looks so … old’ jazz coming from anyway? That seems to be the new talking point.”

        People including myself have said for years that AJ looked very mature for a woman who was in her early 30’s . It’s been said on this site as well. That’s not a new talking point but you’re trying to come up with something new to fight about.

        Lastly weren’t you one of the posters who kept complaining about people bringing up Aniston or comparing Aniston to Jolie whenever there is a post about Angie. Why bring up Jen Emma, she has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @V4Real, who wrote: “People including myself have said for years that AJ looked very mature for a woman who was in her early 30′s . It’s been said on this site as well.”

        People have ‘not’ said for ‘years’ that Angie ‘looks’ very mature (old) for a woman who was in her early 30’s. I’ve actually only seen that particular sentiment in the past year, possibly year and a half.

        No, this ‘looks old/middle-aged-woman’ thing is something relatively recent, as in a year or a little over.

        Again @V4Real, who wrote: “Lastly weren’t you one of the posters who kept complaining about people bringing up Aniston or comparing Aniston to Jolie whenever there is a post about Angie. Why bring up Jen Emma, she has nothing to do with what we are discussing.”

        Nope, I’m not one of the posters who ‘kept complaining.’ But I ‘do’ contend that the ‘looks old/middle-aged-woman’ thing has a lot to do with Jennifer Aniston; which is why I brought it up.

        And I’m not fighting with anyone … I simply made a comment, the last part of which wasn’t directed specifically at ‘you.’ It just seems to me like “She really looks old” is just another automatic reflex response such as “She really needs to eat a sandwich” … regardless of how she actually looks in a photograph.

      • V4real says:

        @Emma yes people have been saying for years Angie looks older. C/B is not the only site I’m referring to, I do read other sites.

        People say something you don’t like about Angie you quickly go on the defense. Let people have their opinions as we let you have yours. I bet if this was someone like Paltrow you wouldn’t give two cents about it. Angie is not a victim, stop treating her as such. Let me see you get this passionate about other celebs when people say something negative about them. You claim that you’re a fan,not a fanatic but your actions prove otherwise. Stop picking a verbal fight over a woman you don’t know personally.

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        @Emma – the JP Lover, It’s OK. You like Angie. That’s cool. I enjoy your comments!

        V4Real, I don’t really see Emma picking a fight. She’s just passionately opinionated in her fandom of Angelina Jolie. Ange/Jen/Justin/Brad is her thing. A LOT of us old timer posters have our favorites. Ems is no different.

        The day we’re overtly discouraged from our fan narratives and ‘triangles’ on this site is the day it stops being fun or informative. (Brandi/Leanne/Eddie)

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @V4Real …

        Gee, I posted a perfectly wonderful response early yesterday morning , but it has been deleted. However, to paraphrase … considering the ‘sites’ you visit, I’m now confident the number of people who truly think Angie looks ‘mature’ (old) for her age is fairly limited.

        @Sloane Wyatt …

        I’m both flattered and puzzled by your post as there really wasn’t anything at all ‘passionate’ in my @V4Real comment. It was more an observation than anything else.

        And I actually ‘do’ post on other threads besides the ones you’ve listed in your post. As an ‘old-timer,’ I have much more ‘fan lore’ to pull from and opinions to express. 🙂

      • Sloane Wyatt says:

        @Emma – the JP Lover, I used the adjective ‘passionate’ to describe posters such as you and myself who frequently comment in threads about our fan favorites. I only listed examples, and I know you post on all sorts of topics and people.

        I will often comment on social justice stories, patriarchy, misogyny, and funny stories, and I always have to reign in my more passionate opinions that sometimes have a tendency to descend into huffy umbrage. JLRL. HA!

      • metallicwow says:

        I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do agree that AJ has been aging fast lately. She is gorgeous yes, but she doesn’t seem that healthy and that can age you.

    • Ponytail says:

      I don’t know that the female character was really an astronaut – it was her first mission, she was an engineer, IIRC.

    • Green Eyes says:

      How condescending! I use to deal with that in the work place before my health took over, now I hear it in general. Some people can naturally look young for their age ..and attractive women can not be intelligent . ( I don’t see my self as beautiful but the term is used a lot so I’ll go w/ attractive). Maybe I can’t use that adjective in reference to me because of stereotypes as you have just supplied . I heard all the time I looked to young and beautiful to be taken seriously in my job positions so I must have slept my way to the top. (No hard work, education, and intelligence got me to where I was ). Now I hear I’m to young looking and beautiful to be sick… Tell it to my failing lungs & kidneys. We teach our children they can grow up to be anything they want with hard work and studying… I’m not about to tell my nieces, but pray your looks go and you age quicker so people will know your intelligent and actually look like an Oncologist (going into cancer research), Corporate Lawyer, Veterinary, and Teacher. Sad to think they will all still be facing those that think in stereotype.

      • V4Real says:

        @Green Eyes I agree with you. Some of the same people will scream about feminism and sexism but yet turn around and say something sexist like well AJ is too beautiful or too young to be an astronaut. It’s funny how they view things differently when it suits thier purpose.

      • Sullivan says:

        Green Eyes, I am sorry that your beauty has been a curse at times. Having said that, every once in a while I’d like to see a character played by someone of average looks, whose face moves. There are actually times when an actress is too young and too beautiful for a role. Of course, this doesn’t happen nearly as often as being too old or not attractive enough for a role.

      • Lady D says:

        Green Eyes! Good to see you girlfriend. I was thinking about you the other day.

    • Ennie says:

      Se was a beautiful and young pilot. She in general was probably more fit to the role, but due to her commitments now everybody is happier. She got great opportunities in directing and Cuaron and Sandra are up for awards. win-win.
      I would have liked to see her working with Cuaron, tho. She is a good director, and I’d like him and Lubezki to win Oscars for this work, even tho I am a JP fan and as such, I wan awards for 12YAS as well.

  4. toto says:

    well honestly , Gravity was big let down for me .. so blah movie and I’ am big space movies fan.

    I watched Apollo minimum 10 times on re run and enjoyed it each time.
    but Gravity i ate all nachos and my man was giving me side eye for dragging him to gravity.

    I love you Sandra but your face was very frozen and the story so Blah.

    God i Love sunshine movie that is one underrated science fiction movie.
    they showed it few days back and maybe this will be the 6th time watching, it reminded me how gravity was so overhyped movie and undeserving even with all the technical hoopla.

    • springingforward says:

      With you on the love of “Sunshine” and disappointment in Gravity.
      So overhyped and poor Sandra couldn’t emote to save her life. Plus Sunshine had an early Chris Evans (yum).

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Completely agree, toto. Gravity was ridiculous and boring. I wish I’d had some nachos to entertain me because the movie certainly didn’t.

    • Syko says:

      Gravity is a terrible movie. Visually stunning, but no story. I was annoyed by Bullock whipping out of her space suit every five minutes to show us her tiny shorts and braless tank top. Personally, if I were stuck in space, I’d keep the space suit on. You know, just in case.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Really, wasn’t that just stupid? I bet any astronauts who saw that thought, yeah, that’s what I float around in in space, too, a little cami and tap pants.

      • krista says:

        THe character took off her space suit a grand number of two times. First because her suit was depleted of oxygen, second because she was drowning. What’s so offensive about the shorts and top? And yeah, real astronauts wear diapers.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I didn’t think it was offensive, exactly, I just thought it was stupid and in there solely to give men some t and a because most of the time she was covered up in a bubble suit. And it was not shorts and a top. It was underwear, with no bra.

      • kristaTF says:

        Oh please. You’d think that outer space would finally be a place where women can wear no bra! In answer to the original poster: can’t believe that anybody could find those scenes titillating.

      • mayamae says:

        Goodnames, I kind of see your point. I’m a huge fan of the Alien/Aliens franchise, and I always roll my eyes at the scenes in which Ripley is clad only in the tiniest of bikini panties and snug tank top minus bra. These scenes usually follow awaking from hyper sleep so they can be considered appropriate, but since I’m not a guy, I guess I don’t appreciate them as I should. I do appreciate that Ripley always has a face bare of makeup and unstyled hair.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Thanks mayamae. I guess krista is just determined to misinterpret everything I say. I don’t care if a woman wears a bra or not, and I’m not a prude who is upset by a woman in underwear. I simply thought the entire movie was ridiculous, except for the special effects, and that part was so obviously a gratuitous flash of skin to wake up the male viewers who were probably asleep through this lame plot where a woman who would never have been allowed in space in the first place manages to do 15 impossible things she doesn’t know how to do just so we can “feel good” at the end.

    • Tara says:

      Haven’t seen gravity. Friends said it was bad/boring. Premise sounds a bit like Solaris, which I *did* like.

    • Peppa says:

      Technically it was great, but it was soooooo boring. I found myself nodding off during parts of it.

  5. T.Fanty says:

    RDJ needs to be RDJ. Those one-note sardonic quips won’t say themselves, you know. Let the man be predictable, ahem, great.

    • Dubois says:

      Lol! I totally agree. Everyone fusses over him, but he’s IMO a one-note actor. A decent one, but still one note.

      • lisa2 says:

        I think RDJ has an adorable personality. I don’t find his acting that great right now. I think that franchises can hurt an actor’s growth. He seems to be doing the same 2 characters. Sherlock and Tony what’s his name. Shame too. I will be interested to see if the audience is interested in seeing him outside those franchises. his last attempt was not received well.

        I would like to see him do something new. I was never a fan of either film franchises.

      • Peppa says:

        I totally agree lisa2. He has great range as an actor (he was fantastic in Chaplin) but for the past ten or so years he has been playing the same character over and over (with the exception of Tropic Thunder I suppose). I love the guy, but I think he is just settling these days.

      • jj says:

        Apart from Iron Man the guy did more than 80 other movies, hardly one note.

      • Dubois says:

        He could have done 100 movies – he always plays the same character. He’s like the male Julia Roberts to me. No matter what she’s in, she’s alway Julia Roberts. I liked him in Soapdish though.

    • Sullivan says:

      Well said.
      RDJ was not right for that role. Not at all.

    • I Choose Me says:


  6. Original Tessa says:

    This kind of thing happens on virtually every movie. Casting changes so many times before the cameras actually role. I don’t know why this particular movie keeps getting brought up. I’m sure Sandra has turned down a hit or two in her day as well.

  7. Samantha25 says:

    I don’t know why people assume that Angelina is mad that she didn’t do Gravity. If she wasn’t passionate about film, she wouldn’t have been able to give a good performance. Turning down movies and getting passed over happens a lot. If every actor got mad or disappointed about a movie, they probably wouldn’t be able to function in the movie business.

  8. LAK says:

    Angelina’s career is doing fine without this film. Some actors’ careers need the type of boost that this sort of film’s BO/awards can do, but I think Angelina is already riding so high that this is a mere drop in the bucket of her career.

  9. Oooh, the director is a nerdy, silver haired fox. Virgilia like.

    Eh….as far as Angelina and Gravity, I guess I don’t see the big deal. From what I’ve heard from people I know, the movie was visually stunning, but the movie was boring. And I saw the trailer, whoever on here said that Sandy was overdoing it on the botox was RIGHT. How in the world can someone act panicked, but the only thing that’s moving on their face is their mouth and eyelids?!?!?!?!?! Because Sandra could barely move her face, from what I remember of the trailer (saw it a loong time ago). It was like, Nicole Kidman bad.

    So, ehh..I also think that if Unbroken proves to be a hit, financially and critically then Angelina will have made the right choice. I never, in a million years, would’ve thought that she would’ve been someone who wanted to direct, or even could direct. I do love WW2 films, and right now the film is reminding me of my neighbor, Mr. Caspary, who’s a WW2 vet himself–he’s 91.

    He’s such a sweet old guy. His wife has a bad hip, so she basically stays in a chair all day–he does EVERYTHING. He does the grocery shopping, fixes up the meals (simple meals, but still), cleans (although I don’t trust his dish washing skills because the last time I was at his house and drank from a cup, it had a ring of dirt in the bottom, but whatevs, he tried), takes care of her….they are everything I would want in a partnership. And he is such a gentleman. Whenever I get ready to leave, he always walks me to the door, and tells me to be careful when I go down the steps if it’s wet or icy….he’s such a sweetheart. And he was pretty hot when he was younger–he showed me some pictures of him and Miss Erma when they were young. He looked like a darker haired (but with a wider nose) James Dean.

    • hunaw says:

      Awww Virginia,your post esp. Caspary made me smile 🙂

    • Andrea1 says:

      I kept saying it that sandra couldn’t move her face So much botox.. Gravity was a great movie technically but nothing special otherwise and highly overrated!

      • So, it’s the space-y version of American Hustle…..if I was McQueen, I’d be pissed if I lost. I really want him to win, although I’m resigned to him not winning. He is amazaing…I haven’t seen Shame yet, but I loved Hunger.

      • V4Real says:

        I saw Gravity in the theaters and it was ok. I kind of lost interest after Clooney’s character bounced. Sandy was just being Sandy, nothing different. The visuals were quite nice, I’ll give them that. But for Sandy to be nominated for an Oscar for that wooden performance is definite proof that The Academy Awards have crossed too far over to the political side.

    • littlestar says:

      Now THAT is a sweet story, Virgilia. I recall you mentioning Mr. Caspary on here a couple of times before. He sounds like he is the epitome of a gentleman and wonderful husband.

      Gravity – I really enjoyed the movie, I thought it was suspenseful and I was so nervous the whole time I could barely watch it. Yes, the storyline was really farfetched, but knowing it was a movie, I was able to hold back my disbelief and enjoy it for what it was. I thought Sandra Bullock was good in it, for her (I like her, but I have never thought she was a “great” actor). George Clooney did his usual act like George Clooney bit to me, so his part wasn’t really standout to me.

  10. Adrien says:

    Gravity was just an OK film to me but I would love to see Alfonso Cuaron vindicated after the Oscars (and the moviegoers) ignored Children of Men. I’m happy that Gravity is successful.

    • Hiddlesgirl85 says:

      I agree with you–Children of Men was a GREAT film. Why it was snubbed, I’ll never know …

    • pwal says:

      It really was great. Normally, I’m not into distopic *if that’s a real word) movies, but it was very effective and moving.

  11. Mouse says:

    Loved this movie and Sandra was perfect in it. That is all.

  12. Jade says:

    I love Angie but I don’t think she would be right for the role. I also love Sandra but honestly, Gravity was kind of underwhelming to me.

    • Cecilia says:

      While Gravity was visually stunning, I was underwhelmed as well. It reminded me of 2001 Space Odyssey minus the intellectual undertones & incredible music. The movie did not provoke much thought. Angelina would not have been right for this part for a number of reasons.

  13. jj says:

    Apart from some cool visuals the movie was pretty boring IMHO. So Cuaron replaced one of the best actors with one of the worst actors? He really could not get anybody better than Clooney?

    I think they needed some mainstream actors for those parts because the budget was pretty high for this movie and mainstream actors more likely guarantee a BO success. Bullock and Clooney are both very mainstream, but unfortunately not very compelling actors on screen.

    I read somebody describing the movie as a beautiful screensaver. Oh well, I guess Cuaron won’t be making movies like the brilliant Y Tu Mama Tambien anymore!

  14. Lark says:

    I don’t think it’s really a big deal—casting changes happen all the time. Gossip wise, people like to play “sliding doors” but it is really common in Hollywood. The rumor I found interesting about this was that Cuaron at one pointed wanted ScarJo (he had wanted her for the Little Princess twenty odd years ago too) and the studio told him no—it’s interesting to see that even big time directors often don’t have final say on who gets cast and that it’s down to the studio/producers.

    • Bridget says:

      At one point the casting was between ScarJo and Blake Lively, I kid you not. ScarJo wanted it bad, and Lively basically saw the script and lobbied hard to be considered – at the time she had KILLER representation, and of course this was on or around the Green Lantern. Supposedly this ticked off ScarJo more than the fact that Blake was sniffing around Ryan.

    • littlestar says:

      OMG I had no idea Cuaron directed the Little Princess movie!!!!! I ABSOLUTELY LOVED that movie when I was a little girl!!! I can’t even count how many times I watched it. This makes me like him even more now.

    • That version of Little Princess is watched about weekly in my house. I love it. Sarah’s passionate please for her father to recognize him as she’s being dragged away, and then that moment when he remembers… It chills me every time.

  15. Luca26 says:

    Gravity was visually stunning and paced well but I found the plot kind of dumb and frankly sexist. Basically without giving anything away Sandra’s character is a bumbling mess and the whole plot is basically a damsel in distress who is too inept to remember her training. Astronauts are some of the toughest and smartest people out there and they don’t panic and wail in these situations whether they are women or men. That people are calling it a feminist movie only shows how bad things are in Hollywood. Sandra was good with what she had to work with but I’d like to think Angelina wouldn’t find that role appealing.

  16. JaDeRu says:

    I didn’t particularly like Gravity. Just meh. But, I thought Sandra did fine and I can’t really see Angie in this. As for RDJ…well I could see him floating away off into space all while cracking snarky Goop insults. Yes, yes that would have been great.

  17. I am seriously loving that BAFTA look on her. I am the most unimagineable person ever, when it comes to clothes (you DON’T want to see what I thought looked good as a 13 year old), so I never would’ve even thought to do an open collar and an untied bow tie. But maybe it’s her stylist…she doesn’t really seem to care what she’s wearing….

    • TC says:

      Virgilia – I think the open collar and undone bow tie makes the look more feminine, while keeping it, classic, sophisticated, fun and flirty. I really love the look on her. She clearly rocks it.

    • minx says:

      I think she and Brad looked like the before/after in their tuxes: He was buttoned up and tidy, she was open-necked and relaxed, as if after an event was over. Loved, loved, loved the look.

  18. Drea says:

    I don’t know whether Jolie would have worked in this role – most commenters so far seem to think no, but sometimes actors surprise you, But I can’t help but wish that she had a better filmography and had worked with more directors who are at least as gifted as Alfonso Cuaron. As it is, she’s usually just been the best thing in competent yet unambitious and not particularly memorable films.

    Of course, maybe that just hasn’t been a priority for her, now more than ever given her humanitarian work & branching out into directing.

    • She’s never really struck me as being really, really ambitious in her career. You can see almost a pattern….she had her moments were she played characters that were really close to her (Gia, Lisa Rowe) and made her think about what she was doing, but she also really just seemed to approach her career as something fun and exciting. First she did the action films and her own stunts, and then when she started having kids, she did a few kids movies, did a few more action films and a drama—I don’t think she really, really cares about acting that much anymore. Like her career isn’t her end all. I wish she would do more dramatic roles….and I love that she’s doing Maleficent–but I am excited for her directing as well. Hopefully, she’ll do more than a few movies and quit.

      • Artemis says:

        I don’t know, she auditioned for meaty Oscar baiting roles such as Silver Linings and she lost because JLaw had a better audition, which is spinned into: Jolie didn’t want it but then why would Jolie audition? That type of role would have been PERFECT for her and an actress of her caliber doesn’t go around auditioning for roles she doesn’t want. Plus the director of The Tourist said she gets send every script between 25-40? Or something like that right? I believe when she auditions or talks about a project, she really wants to do it. She wanted to get Atlas Shrugged made and even BP with Plan B was pushing this years ago. Then there were the Versace rumours which stopped when Ridley Scott got replaced and the new director didn’t want Jolie. Then there’s Scarpetta. All good films.

        There are so many instances when she makes plain bad decisions and misses out on a Oscar baiting role a la Changeling and then there are instances when there are better actresses winning the part.

        Her 90s work showcase her talent the most. That’s passion and ambition right there. Early 00s are plain embarassing (probably because Maddox changed her priorities) and after Pitt she took on some good drama roles again to then not give shit anymore again. Sure action is great for her, but she is turning into a one note actress. If she wants a mindless action flick or whatever the hell The Tourist was to make a quick buck, then fine but until then, I’m convinced she doesn’t give a crap anymore. Her last movies are not memorable at all and I believe she needs an agent. As an actress she doesn’t give a flip, I think her new ambition is definitely directing, she always wants more it seems. And I hope Unbroken is better than B&H because a writer she is not 😉

      • lisa2 says:


        where did that come from Angie didn’t audition for SLPB.. She didn’t take the role. She said no. so how does that equal she lost the role to Jennifer Lawrence. Angelina doesn’t have to audition for roles. They write parts for her. And she was never signed on to do it.

        talk about spin.

        She fought to get the Directors job for Unbroken.

      • Artemis says:

        From the horse’s mouth:

        Quite frankly, it was like a formality,” Russell told the capacity crowd at the Landmark Theatre. “I didn’t think she was really a contender.
        We had three very serious contenders (already). We had a lot of major actresses in town interested in the role, from Angelina Jolie to some other big stars…

        Or Vulture:

        The role was originally meant for Zooey Deschanel, and when we pointed out that she probably wouldn’t have packed the same punch as Lawrence, Russell let slip some other stars who tried for the role: “Or Angelina Jolie or Olivia Wilde or Rachel McAdams or Blake Lively. There were multiple actresses who kept auditioning for the role, and they were wonderful.

        She wanted the role and she lost, just like the other ones. If fans are going to claim she gets send every script or has first choice, then you’re also going to have to explain why she loses roles to lesser actresses (meaning, those who still have to make their mark or are very early in their career or simply B+ actresses). She had a good audition but she lost, sometimes clout isn’t important enough.

        The notion that she ‘doesn’t want’ certain scripts when it was out in Vulture or the Hollywood Reporter or even claimed by herself many times (Atlas Shrugged) is simply a lie. Clearly she’s interested in some films but hasn’t made a decent one in almost 3 years and the ones she did do are not really strong or great ones. If you think she seriously doesn’t want those roles despite going after them, you’re in denial. A PR spin from her camp and her fans ‘she doesn’t want them’ is simply that: a spin.

        You can find a lot of evidence of roles that she missed or were forgotten (Gertrude Bell, Scarpetta, Atlas Shrugged, Gucci NOT Versace sorry 😀 etc) so no, a film with her name does not get made automatically and no, if she auditions she doesn’t get the role automatically.

        EDIT to add: Maleficent and Kung Fu Panda was written for Jolie? Or Salt? That was written for Tom Cruise and they had faith in Jolie so they re-wrote it for her. The Tourist was a bland character so don’t insult Jolie. Jolie admitted herself it seemed like a fun film. There are some roles that were written for her but a lot of roles that already were real life people or existing characters so I don’t know why many fans seems to think that Jolie gets scripts revolving around her?

      • jj says:

        I’m not sure her roles in Gia or GI were that much of a stretch for her. Gia was a good film though.

      • jj says:

        I think people see AJ more as a celebrity than an actress. Both Salt and The Tourist were not big BO hits, so for some reason she is not that big a draw. Regardless I would have preferred her over Lawrence in SLP and Bullock in Gravity. Both Lawrence and Bullock were completely unbelievable in those roles and AJ would have at least spiced it up a bit. She was great in Skycaptain which was completely CGI, so she is definitely familiar with the technology.
        As for RDJ, I bet he had a problem with the weak script and corny dialogue and since the director didn’t want the actors to get involved with story, character and script development, I guess it’s better the role went to lame Clooney.

      • V4Real says:

        @Artimis I agree with you. Jolie even said in regarding Kung Fu Panda that she wanted the role of the Tiger and was happy that they gave it to her. The role wasn’t written for her or had her in mind when they wrote the script.

        Who are the people who are saying that AJ doesn’t have to audtion for roles or that all the scripts go to her first? Mr. and Mrs. Smith was first offered to Nicole Kidman.

      • Artemis says:


        Yeah, good for her. It does seem her roles are more based around what her children would like to see or what’s easiest for her schedule or wallet 🙂 There are so many actors who do that so I can’t fault her for it. Her passion is for sure directing and her humanitarian work. And being a mom of course.

        Superstans I’m sure. Lisa2 didn’t even know she still auditions. Heck, Queen Mery Streep STILL auditions. I know she did for Julie and Julia in 2009.
        There’s nothing shameful or wrong about auditions and I think it’s the least they can do considering how fucked up and unfair Hollywood is. But superstans want to believe directors only want Jolie when that’s obviously not true.

        As for Jolie’s auditions, 2 black actresses (Berry for sure and I think JP Smith) were considered for Wanted first which makes sense because in the comics that character was black. There were a lot of actresses who auditioned/considered before Jolie got the MAMS part (even Gwen Stefani). And she lost out to Jlaw for SLP. She can act but people need to stop pretending she’s on par with actresses such as Kidman, Blanchett etc.

      • V4real says:

        If you let the fanatics tell it I bet she was offered Lupita’s role in 12Years too and turned it down. LOL

      • Artemis says:

        LMAO, they probably would 😀

      • Mari says:

        Artemis a small correction: you keep mentioning throughout this thread that Jolie auditioned for Tiffany in SLP and lost out to JLaw. The reality is AJ was attached to SLP early on in development (think 2008 or so), but by the time the movie filmed in 2011 she’d moved on to other things. There were a lot of delays in getting the movie made, Russell actually went ahead and made The Fighter in the meantime while the process slogged along.

        Anne Hathaway was formally signed, but when she dropped out due to conflicts with Dark Knight Rises (Nolan filmed forever, over the entire last half of 2011), Russell had the last-minute casting call the netted Lawrence, via Skype of all things.

        I don’t know if Jolie was ever made to audition formally for SLP or not back in ’08, but she didn’t “lose out” to Lawrence, she’d already been well out of the picture (literally) by that point. It all worked out well in the end, as Jennifer was fantastic and of course won the Oscar. All’s well that ends well.

    • Artemis says:


      Oh yes, I forgot about AH! Well, I tried to look for a time frame but all I could find was:

      Well, whatever. I don’t think so,” the studio exec said. “She went on to win the Academy Award for Les Miserables — maybe we’re kicking [ourselves] in the head.”
      “Then Jennifer Lawrence and two or three other actress came in, and the minute we saw Jennifer Lawrence’s tape . . . Because I said, ‘How the hell are we gonna replace Annie?’ And then this amazing creature walked in who is a brilliant actress, and so much fun, and she won an Oscar.

      Once she dropped out, finding Anne’s replacement didn’t take long for Weinstein.
      ‘And then this amazing creature walked in who is a brilliant actress, and so much fun, and she won an Oscar.

      SLP was filmed in 33 days around October 2011.
      Anne Hathaway filmed TDK in May – November 2011. Jolie filmed B&H in 2010 (including pre-production) but was still acting in a few films so indeed, they were both too busy.

      But regardless of this, Anne was the lead (so superfans who claim AJ always has first choice are wrong). They found it difficult to replace her DESPITE Jolie auditioning together with other actresses who aren’t on Jolie’s level (but lovely actreses I’m sure!) so why wasn’t she suited for the role instantly? It was only after Jlaw auditioned that they saw the right Tiffany. Even if Jolie didn’t have other projects on her plate, she still would have lost.

      • Mari says:

        Thanks for replying Artemis, sorry to be a bit late responding here 🙂

        What I was trying to say was that Jolie was in fact the 1st choice for the role (perhaps with or just after Zooey?), as she was attached back around 2008. By the time Russell/Weinstein got the final ball rolling in 2011 she’d well moved on, I don’t believe she was even in the pool of auditioning actresses to replace Hathaway, despite some of the confusing comments by the filmmakers (as quoted above – you know they tend to run names together). She’s well moved on to other projects and frankly I believe would not have auditioned for Tiffany at that point in her career – she was pretty huge, status-wise, by mid-2011.

        (Although note, that doesn’t mean she wouldn’t still read for something even today if she thought it important enough, just not for SLP I believe by that point).

        Here’s a link to an article with the list of actresses who auditioned at that time:

        Thanks for the interesting posts either way 🙂 apologies for the late reply.

    • Ennie says:

      I do not know why some are so bent out on AJ getting or passing on a role (SLP or any other). Some were good, meaty roles, etc., and they would’ve been good for her acting career. She was interested or her manager got her interested, well, she is an actress in demand. What it is true is that at the time of the SLP filming, she was already finishing and premiering her ITLOBAH movie. She would have most probably dropped the movie just the same as she did not film Gravity. She was interested in making her directing debut.
      Also she herself has said how she was going to act less. She is being choosy and has her own interests when selecting a film to act in, and she is not selecting just oscar bait to work in.
      If she did otherwise and were starring in more films, people would be calling her a liar, and how she is abandoning her family while Brad cries his eyes out and runs to the other room while she is signing for yet another film.

  19. glaugh says:

    Whatever. Gravity was awesome, I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. I agree the dialogue was a bit off though.

  20. TG says:

    I loved Gravity and was so scared throughout the movie because I was able to put myself in Sandra’s shoes. I can watch space stuff all day. I do agree with many that the plot got old after awhile. I mean how many times can you get to safety only to have that knocked away again. I loved the final scene. I realized watching this movie that there are movie stars that everyone likes to watch such as Sandra and George and then there are very good actors such as PSH and many others. Sandy and George weren’t that great here but for me it didn’t matter because I only cared about the space part and not necessarily Sandra’s storyline and her ability to emote. I only like George in fun movies where he is being suave.

  21. MAM says:

    When the movie was going out, they said that AJ was asking for $20millions for the role, so they thought it was a lot of money because at the time they still have to figure out the technical part. But as they got Sandra, I remember somewhere reading that Scarlet Johansson and Blake Lively audition for that part too¡¡ Also Angelina did not leave the project for Unbroken, it was for here directorial debut in a film: In the Land of Blood and Honey .

    • lisa2 says:

      That story of her asking for 20 million was gossip. She obviously didn’t want to do the role. If she was planning on Directing her film I doubt the money was the issue. There were lots of people attached at some point. And the thing is it was all how many years ago. Goodness the need to make a story where there is not one.

  22. Bea says:

    Someone in Hollywood said that all of the scripts go to Angelina first and then when she turns them down, they go to everyone else. I think if Angie really wanted to do this film she would have found a way – it was 5 years in the making.

    I found the film boring, trite, predictible and too damsel in distress – maybe that’s why she didn’t want to do it – Angie wants to be James Bond, not a Bond girl.

    I think I nodded off a couple of times during Gravity and it would be a shame if it or AH won over TYAS.

    Let’s really see if Hollywood is as ready to move forward as they claim they are.

    • Cecilia says:

      I don’t believe that ALL of the scripts go to Angelina first. I think she gets her fair share — but ALL scripts — that is not believable.

    • Bea says:

      You are right Cecilia – I’m sure the aging stipper and the sex crazed banana fellating scripts go to a whole other class of actors. Directors and producers wouldn’t even dream of Angelina in those kind of roles.

    • Artemis says:

      That would be Jlaw now. The girl can switch between small films and blockbuster and gets to play characters that are meant for older actresses (such as SLP, which Jolie auditioned for). Her schedule is always packed and she’s the it-girl for nearly two years now.
      Jolie hasn’t even been in a film since 2010 (when that quote was offered by the director of The Tourist) so to say she’s in-demand is obsolete. She’s not even interested in films anymore, or so it seems.

      Also, of all the scripts, she would choose to star in films like The Tourist and do animated films? Clearly she herself doesn’t care that much about being ‘in-demand’, move past 2010.

      • Sullivan says:

        I thought I read an interview with Jennifer Lawrence in which she said she got offered Angelina Jolie’s castoffs or rejects. I’m not sure of the exact wording, but Lawrence was referencing SLP. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

      • Artemis says:

        Yeah it was a joke but true because she was talking about Serena, not SLP. That role was meant to be for Jolie. I remember Jolie saying she was a big fan of Aronofsky and he was set to direct but they both dropped out. Would’ve been interested to see that version!

        For SLP she did actually beat Jolie. They didn’t find the right actress (after Anne Hathaway) until Jlaw popped up. By then, Jolie and a plethora of other actresses had already auditioned and none had the impact Jlaw had.

  23. lisa2 says:

    Why is the fact that Angie or Brad turn down a role makes news. I don’t get that. Casting changes happen all the time. Thing is that is not the case. Neither she nor Robert were ever cast in the role. And you don’t see Angie talking about the roles she has declined to do. I’m sure if you look at movies and who started as the wanted actor/actor that would be for most films.

    I like that neither she nor Brad talk about the roles they could have been in. You make choices about the films you want to do and the ones you don’t. Movies are crap shoots. You don’t know if they will hit with an audience or not. She turned down the role several times. Obviously it was not one she wanted.

    Don’t see why it is even a big deal. but I guess it’s because it’s Angelina. Do we know what roles Cate B, or Meryl or Kate W or Nicole or Jennifer L. have turned down. NO because if you decline a role it not yours; you move on.

    • gennline says:

      The reason why it’s news, especially with this film is that people want to use it to attack AJ.
      She turned down the role and the film is a big hit, so they hope that is detrimental to AJ in some way. Or they state that she was asking for a large amount of money up front, so they can shade her by implying that she was asking for too much or more than she is worth.
      AJ went off to make The Land of Blood&Honey, which has turned out to be a far more important film for her than Gravity could have been.
      The last time that she was on Charlie Rose she stated that she didn’t need to make any more money, so AJ didn’t need Gravity. Her passion apart from her family is her humanitarian work, so anything that furthers that will mean far more.
      AJ has said that she lost a lot of roles at the start of her career, because she was deemed to ‘exotic’, so films not working out will not be new to her.

    • Blue says:

      Angelina and Brad are at the top of the A list, and some people just love to try and pull them down any way they can. Their response is perfect though, they just don’t give a toss, they’re just doing what they want to do, be it films, their side ventures, or their private life.

    • TC says:

      gennline & Blue — Totally agree with you both. Brad and Angie are targets and the media loves to have a go at them. It’s good for business as the tabloids and bloggers like to say. But they just live their lives which makes me admire them even more. They don’t spend their wheels releasing statements denying rumors and gossip. They know what’s real.

      I personally hated Gravity. For me, a film’s story is it’s core and Gravity’s was extremely weak. All it had was special effects. So as far as I’m concerned, I’m glad she passed and decided to pursue her passion project with In the Land of Blood and Honey. That ended up to be the impetus for the new War-Zone Rape law that Angie presented to world leaders at the G8 Summit last year and is currently being implemented by the G8. So in my book, Angie chose wisely.

    • dizzylucy says:

      I don’t think it’s any specific to Angelina. I’ve seen a lot written about stars who turned down famous roles, people who auditioned but didn’t get it, etc. I rarely see any actor talk about the roles they didn’t do – most of the time it’s directors, producers, etc who talk about the people they met with, or people who were attached to a project and then left. Especially around Oscar time, or when a film has a lot of financial success, there are always stories about people who were up for roles that led to nominations.

      • TC says:

        On the contrary, bloggers have been talking about Angie passing on Gravity since the sci-fi flick debuted last October. So clearly, there’s a PR angle to generate gossip and internet clicks. It’s the need to fan the flames of Angie passing on an “Award Contender.” Angie passing on a “Best Actress Nomination.” I highly doubt there would be this incessant coverage on this story if it was Michelle Williams or Naomi Watts who passed on this project. But it’s Angie, so all bets are off. I can understand it as an initial story. But to continually milk the non-drama in this as if Angie “lost out (as many of the bloggers have insinuated)” is just silly. Angie passed. She wanted to direct In the Land of Blood and Honey. That’s all there is to it.

  24. Kim1 says:

    Whatever is meant to be is meant to be.Nicole Kidman was initially cast opposite Pitt in MMS.It wasn’t meant to be.AJ told the Financial Times several years ago she used to need to act now she no longer needs to act to release whatever.She is passionate about directing not acting.So she will turn many other great parts.

  25. Lee says:

    We really enjoyed Gravity – saw it in 3D. Can’t imagine Angelina in the role. Sandra may not be the finest actress out there, but as beautiful as Angelina is, she’s one of the worst actresses out there. I don’t hate her, on the contrary, I’m mesmerized by her beauty, but her acting? Embarrassing. Have you seen Original Sin?

    • soulsister says:

      No haven’t seen Original Sin but have seen Gia, Girl Interrupted and A Mighty Heart and she was exceptional in all 3 of those films.

      • TC says:

        soulsister — Gia, Girl Interrupted and A Mighty Heart were definitely incredible and noteworthy performances, garnering critical acclaim for Jolie. All three selections are fitting.

        I’d also include the HBO’s historical drama, George Wallace — for which she won her first Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress — and Changeling which garnered her a Best Actress Oscar nom.

      • You should also watch ‘True Women’–it’s this Hallmark miniseries she did in the 90s….loved it.

        And while I found Original Sin a mess (the execution was left to be desired), I liked Angelina in the film. That’s why I enjoy her acting. Even if the story is crap, she always overcomes that (for me). That’s what I like in my actors. The only movie of hers I’ve seen and not liked is ‘Life or Something like it’…boring.

      • Delighted says:

        I loved Original Sin and I loved Angelina in it and also Antonio Banderas. The movie was thrilling.

      • @Delighted
        That’s what I mean–even when a movie is so-so, I always enjoy the film, because of Angelina. That’s why she’s one of my favorite actresses. I don’t expect actors to be in absolutely mind blowing, amazing films all the time. Sometimes we pick films that seem good at the time, maybe the director’s crappy, maybe there are just unresolveable issues on the set that affects yours and everyone else’s performance, beyond your control. But I expect an actor to give it their all, to transcend the horrible material, the crappy writing–whatever it may be. That’s what Angelina does for me in her films, which I think is technically better than being a DDL type actor (which I think he’s that type of actor too). I’ve only disliked two of her films–Life or Something Like It and The Tourist (beyond the total lack of chemistry between Johnny and Angelina, I hate the premise of the whole story).

  26. Musi says:


  27. I Choose Me says:

    Gravity was visually stunning but the plot was weak and the acting soooo bad. Clooney was Clooney and I like Sandra Bullock a lot but she needs to quit the botox because it is not doing her any favors acting wise. Also, I hate when a movie tries to knock me over the head with symbolism. That whole fetus floating pose made me roll my eyes so hard.

  28. TC says:

    I’m sure scheduling conflicts were the issue for Angie, as she was focused on directing In the Land of Blood and Honey around that time. But given that Gravity has the weakest narrative on any of the films nominated in the Best Film category, I’m sure that also had something to do with as well. Gravity is nothing but special effects. It’s got one of the thinnest narratives ever written for a best film nomination. Glad it didn’t work out.

  29. Jane says:

    Ugh, the RDJ bashing here. Maybe you guys should try to watch to him in something besides Iron Man? He only has like 30+ movies…

    • JaDeRu says:

      I don’t think anyone is bashing RDJ. He’s a fine actor. Some just feel he isn’t right for the role. As for his personality or statements that he’s made…If an actress said half the stuff he says in interviews, they’d be obliterated into obscurity and never work again.

      • jj says:

        I actually like his irreverent statements. At least he is not one of those typical Hollywood toadies.

    • V4Real says:

      LOL, that was the old RDJ, the new RDJ didn’t arrive until 2008. I’m just messing with you Jane.

      Some people on this site know that RDJ is my number one. But they are allowed to have their opinions about him as we all do about other celebs. I don’t get hostile when someone says something disparaging about a star I adore. If you listen to the way Cauron tells it, Gravity wasn’t a good fit for RDJ because it was too hammer to nail.

      I consider R a great actor but not everyone feels that way. Some people think Christian Bale is a great actor while I just think he’s ok and nice to look at. One poster on this post said she thinks Angelina Jolie is a horrible actress. I just laughed and thought to myself Angie isn’t that bad. She’s allowed to have her opinion, at least until the fanactics get wind of it.

      • Blue says:

        Oh V4R, I was with you until your last sentence, I can totally understand her fans are very enthusiastic about defending her, she has been ripped apart for nearly ten years, and some of the things said about her and her children have been totally disgusting, I can’t believe it is still ongoing nearly a decade later.

      • Peppa says:

        I’m a big RDJ fan as well. He has done some fantastic work, but these days he’s probably just taking it easy doing the franchise work. He could get more creative with choosing roles when The Avengers is all said and done with.

        I have a lot of actors I enjoy, but I’ve just never been a fanatic fan. I guess it depends on your personality. I personally can’t justify going at it with someone over a person I don’t actually know. It’s very odd to me, but again, I guess it depends on your personality. I do wonder if celebs are flattered by this fact, or if they find it strange.

      • Andrea1 says:

        Why use the word fanatic?

      • V4real says:

        @Blue Let me explain. There a difference between a fan and a fanatic. A fan will adore a celeb, appreciate their work. A fan will make compliments about their favorite celeb but also call them out on BS. A fan will not get all bent out of shape if other people say something negative about a celeb they like. They let others have their opinions. A fanatic seems more obsessed with that celeb. A fanatic will not accept another’s opinion if they don’t agree with it. They will call you a hater and a liar. But they will treat their opinions as if it is fact. They act as if they know the celeb better than that celeb knows themselves.

        People do this when it comes to Angie. They act like Angie is a defenseless victim and should not be opened to ridicule. I adore RDJ but I’m not going to get into a verbal fight everytime someone doesn’t agree with me or say something negative about him. I know about the horrible things people have said about AJ but she’s not the only celeb and people need to stop treating her as such. You should have read some of the crap they were spewing about Halle Berry. They were being very racial towards her and her child.
        It’s been over 10 years and people are still talking about AJ. Well it’s been just as long with RDJ but people still talk about his stint in prison and drug past. Some still call him a criminal and a drug addict. That’s their opinion and let them talk. I’m just saying we all have our opinions . Look how some have turned against JLaw. I still like her but even I tend to say she’s working my nerves at times. People just need to stop acting like AJ is the Holy Grail.

    • Zwella Ingrid says:

      I love love love RDJ I won’t listen to anything bad about him. I have my fingers stuck in my ears. lalalalala

      • Blue says:

        @V4R, see that’s what I don’t get, I understand why people are fans of celebs, but I cannot understand people hating someone that they have never met so much that they come to websites to talk about them constantly on every thread about them, dedicate websites about hating them.

        Regarding Halle Berry and RDJ, I’m not a fan of either so can’t say I’ve ever read anything bad about them, but I would understand that their fans may be a bit enthusiastic about defending them, compared to someone like Amy Adams, Cate Blanchett or Sandra Bullock who have seemed to have had a very easy time of celebdom maybe if people didn’t take so much glee in trying to pull Angelina and Brad down they wouldn’t react as strongly.

        Look at this thread people are rubbing their hands together at the thought of AJ losing a role to JL, when she had left the picture before JL was even considered.

        Her fans don’t treat her as the “holy grail” they just appreciate the fact that she has been open and honest about her past and seems to be a very loving genuine person who wants to do good with her life.

      • Anon says:

        @Blue agree with your post

      • jj says:

        @ Blue

        There is a difference between being a fan of an actor and being a fan of a celeb.

  30. Talie says:

    I think the role required an actress who could garner major sympathy from the audience and Sandra has that more then Angelina — she’s far more relatable in that way. As is George compared to RDJ. I also remember Natalie Portman turning this down as well.

  31. Paige says:

    My God Angie is beautiful in the top pic 🙂

  32. MrsBPitt says:

    My son and I couldn’t wait to see Gravity, and when we went, we were on the edge of our seats, ready to get up and leave…BORING…

  33. Jeanette says:

    Angelina plus RDJ in a film..mind blown..hes jest freaky enough for loads of chemistry..just sayin..HAWT

    • Sullivan says:

      I agree that RDJ and Angelina would have smokin’ chemistry. It would have been wasted in Gravity, though.

  34. lower-case deb says:

    i was talking to someone in my office who, according to herself, made the mistake of watching All Is Lost first and then Gravity.

    “it made Sandra’s character come across as extra-whiney” she said about her first viewing. A second viewing with her son who loves Space is a bit better “less whiney, but still no Redford”.

    her other assessment, the main character of Gravity is Space Itself, Sandra is just the supporting actress to it, or even an accessory. whereas, my friend thinks that Redford’s character in AIL can actually be lost in a kiddy pool and make you believe he’d die.

    also note however, that my friend is prone to hyperbole about things she like.

    another caveat, i have not seen AIL except for that one trailer many moons ago, so can’t offer my own assessment.

    • TC says:

      OMG! All is Lost was a brilliant film and Redford was incredible in it!! His performance was riveting. One of the best movies of 2013 in my opinion.

      It’s really unfortunate Redford’s movie got lost during awards season. This is my argument for why campaigning — especially for smaller films — is important.

  35. Bridget says:

    With a star of Angenlina’s caliber, the expectation that she keep her calendar open for a role is a little far-fetched, especially when they had no start date and it took them 5 years to get the movie made. A LOT of good roles have her as their ideal casting, so she has her pick, but she’s clearly more and more interested in making her own films.

  36. mercy says:

    I can’t say how Angelina would’ve done because I don’t think I’ve ever seen her in a role like this, but I would’ve liked to see her take on it. Sandra did a good job, though (and there was a time when no one would’ve considered her for heavy dramatic roles like this.)

    Gravity had me on the edge of my seat, but I have to say the micro-budget independent film Buried has a similar concept and is even more compelling, and features even better performance from the lead actor (though it has some of the same flaws when it comes to believability, and I would’ve preferred a different ending.)

  37. Maggie says:

    Neither Angie or Sandra should have been cast in this film. A younger less known but more talented actress would have been better. These two have been around too long and their private lives too publicised for me to see past who they are.

  38. starrywonder says:

    Wow shocked at how many people didn’t like Gravity. It wowed my socks off. I went with a group of friends and we were all so impressed by it. I thought the storyline was great. And you go through a battery of tests to be trained as an astronaut but unless you say some depressive things no one is going to know that you are depressed. I didn’t find Sandra Bullock’s character depressed just very aloof at the beginning of the movie. You find out why later. I thought Clooney’s character was very engaging. And yes if I was an astronaut and sent adrift in space no I don’t think I would be super calm. I have been trained to deal with terrorists attacks on buildings, car bombings, and an unknown shooter situation while in car or in a building. However, when that happens you don’t always act the way you should when trained.

    • Ryan FAILED modular landing. NASA won’t send up people who can’t pass ALL the tests. They also put you through more mental health evaluating than you can imagine. It’s not like a civilian talking with a shrink for a few minutes. They push and push to see if they can get you to crack. They need to know that you aren’t going to. Someone who’d recently lost a child isn’t going to happen. Gabby Giffords’ husband going up almost didn’t happen because of concerns over whether or not he’d be too stressed. If she had died, he wouldn’t have been allowed. Yet Ryan’s DAUGHTER DIED recently, and she was sent up, despite failing testing? Not happening.

      In addition this movie makes it seem like where you end up in space is a crap shoot with projectiles trying to hit you all the time. NASA is smarter than that, and monitors those things. Those are more reliably predictable than the man-made spacecrafts.

  39. Jordon says:

    I wonder if AJ even cares about acting awards anymore. She seems pretty done with it and her real joy is directing.

  40. Sunlily says:

    Unless the script was totally re-written, it wouldn’t have mattered if AJ and RDJ played the roles; they wouldn’t have been believable astronauts. Right from the beginning I couldn’t understand how Bullocks character was let into NASA let alone actually be chosen to go into space. I wanted Bullocks to die the minute she started whining. I can’t help but believe this movie would have been 100x more tolerable and believable if it was totally SILENT! I’ll give it it’s props, it was great to look at. Unfortunately, IMO, that was about the only thing it had going for it.

  41. StaCat1 says:

    I think this film came out great. To be the lone actor to CARRY a film is incredibley difficult. I found Bullock credible as a medical engineer…since that is what she was. She was not an “astronaut” technically. Yes, much fo the film gave leeway to authenticity..but imo, Bullock nailed it for what she needed to do.
    The film would have been very different with Jolie (not worse/better..but different). Personally I can’t see Jolie carrying the snappy rapport Bullock/Clooney had. That relationship would have been different. Jolie would need to have bulked up physically too….Bullock was trim but not frail.
    Her nomination is well deserved, imo.

    For what it’s worth- not only Jolie was in the running- Marion Cotiallard tested, and Johannsen, Blake Lively (oy) and Natalie Portman were also being considered. Many times the big names the financiers (& who historically are awful judges of the right person for the ROLE) wanted does not guarantee a box office.

    I think fate picked the right girl for this one. I don’t think she will win the Oscar for it..but she earned her nod nonetheless. My two cents…

  42. Common Sense says:

    Wow some of the comments here are disturbing; praising one person while bringing down another person at the same time. I hope Sandra Bullock doesn’t decide to google herself again, and see this site, there is only so much negativity a person can handle directed at him/herself.

  43. Lila says:

    I can’t see Angelina in Gravity. I think her face would have been overwhelming. Not just because she’s gorgeous but because she has large, prominent features. In all those close-ups, I think that is all I would have been able to focus on. Lips! Cheekbones! That said, Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were not great. George Clooney in particular seemed to be treating it like a paycheck movie. Sandra Bullock’s strong suit is charm and accessibility, not dramatic acting in close ups. Can you imagine Nicole Kidman, back during the time she filmed ‘Birth’, in this movie? She would have been awesome.

  44. Just Lurking says:

    I felt Gravity was the movie Speed in space. That’s the first time I’ve had a one-dimentional feeling about Sandra Bullock but I still liked the premise of the movie. That said, I wouldn’t have seen it if Angelina Jolie was the lead.

  45. Maria says:

    Angelina is too underbuilt to be an astronaut. Her old Tomb Raider figure would work and she is smart enough to be an astronaut, but now she looks a little frail I think…

  46. Anna Scott says:

    Every single role goes to Jolie first. Absolutely. I bet she was offered Amy Adam’s and Jennifer Lawrence’s roles in American Hustler. In fact, she was asked to play both characters in the same movie. Meryl Streep’s role in Osage County? Yep, she was asked too but turned it down. The Help? The director asked her to play each and every character and she kept turning them down. She’s the only one actress who matters and that’s why she chose to do voice for a cartoon. Makes perfect sense

    • I would say that she gets probably 90% of all major studio scripts, as well as people sending scripts to her to see if she’ll do an indie. The whole ‘Angelina gets all the scripts’ came from the director of ‘The Tourist’–he said it in Vogue. That every script with a female character age 20-40, she gets the script–meaning she was surprised that she decided to do his film.

  47. Megan says:

    Gravity was the best film of the year IMO. While I don’t think it will win best picture (although I would love to see it do so) it WILL win best director. Which Mr. Cuaron absolutely deserves. I never seen anything like Gravity. Just brilliant.

  48. Mary Jane says:

    I loved Gravity, but would not have gone to see it if Jolie had been in it. I don’t think she’s a very good actress at all.
    Is anyone else shocked that Jolie’s only 38? I really thought she was older than that.

  49. kay says:

    @V4real,love love love your comment.I’m tired of some people treating her like she’s some helpless victim,she doesn’t need your help fanatics,she can take care of herself,you guys are making her threads toxic.I also agree that she’s a really good actress,she just has a hard time picking good roles,or maybe she doesn’t care.But thats what makes her good,she makes every movie she starrs in interesting and watchable,unlike many actors that need the best directors and writers to shine.
    @VC,I love the bafta’s look too.
    @Artemis,I’m pretty sure the reason she’s not been in a movie since 2010 is not because she couldn’t get roles,the woman got to direct a major movie even when she had to fight with bigger directors,not every woman is that lucky.So please stop making it sound like she’s a hollywood has-been.I apologize if I sound harsh,its just that I never understand your comments,they always seem so…..contradictory.

    Anyways,I can’t wait for her to start promoting maleficent,hope she has a good year.

    • Artemis says:

      I never said that. I said she loses out on roles or passes on roles (e.g. SLP, Gravity, Serena) or the projects are forgotten about (Gucci, Gertrude Bell, Atlas Shrugged). There were legit reports and quotes about that in Vulture, Collider, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter. I distinctly remember the stans saying she was going to star in Gucci when she was photographed at Scott’s office with the script and the new director (Scott’s daughter) shifted the focus on P. Cruz as the new lead. If people can mention the million roles she reportedly has or is tied then why not point out she lost or passed on them? Sometimes she actually can’t get roles. It happens many many times, even with Jolie.

      The films she does chooses are less than stellar (acting wise). I think I gave enough legit examples to support this argument and none of it was contradictory. I called her A-list several times,said she has clout, is important and said she was up against lesser actresses during SLP so I don’t know where you could’ve interpreted that I found her a has-been!? The mind boggles as to why her acting projects are so mediocre considering her status.

      All I said was that unlike her fans try to claim, she’s clearly not first choice, projects don’t just jumpstart with her name attached and on a personal note that she’s not up there with actresses like Streep or Blanchett. Those were the ‘negative’ points.

      Btw, need I remind you that she signed with a talent agencies (UTA & IFA) so clearly, she needs help in the role department as she clearly still wants to act in some way. I hope they get her good ones and that she starts to care again which, considering the agencies, it seems she does.

  50. Mar says:

    Off topic- her facial structure is effing amazing

  51. Just Me says:

    I don’t have time to read all these comments. I’m just coming in from the Johnny/Amber thread to comment that I think it’s hysterical the placement of these 2 articles. The shade the Angelina thumbnail pic is giving Amber is hilarious! That had to be intentional on behalf of CB!

  52. UFLX TV says:

    Angelina is hot

  53. Kosmos says:

    I like seeing Sandra Bullock 1,000 times more in a film than Jolie, hands down !!! Angelina may have a movie star reputation and she’s been around for a while, but I was never thrilled by her acting skills. I thought she got by mostly on her looks, and some films that just clicked with her, but mostly, I don’t consider her a really good actress. In fact, I usually don’t see a film if she’s in it….but Sandra, I see everything she’s in, whether it’s five stars or two stars…, that’s a good actress!!

  54. FirstTimer says:

    I don’t know why my comment wasn’t posted but, I don’t want to repeat what I said. I’ll just post Russell’s original comments on Angelina and SLP before the JLaw for Best Actress campaign:

    From Vulture:
    “You know, Angelina would really be awesome. I think Angelina would love to be in it, but I don’t know if that’ll happen because of some conflicts in scheduling and other stuff. But I love her and I’ve loved talking to her about several projects … I think that she’s a loaded weapon and ready to be deployed.”

    And Gravity being written for Angelina:
    From Vulture:

    This was 2009, and the mechanism for financing anything but the most commercial superhero movies appeared broken. So in pitches, Cuarón all but pretended it was one. “We kept saying that instead of doing one of their franchises, we could present something that is wrapped like it, like a wolf in a sheep’s skin.”

    He called Lubezki to bring him onboard. Lubezki agreed, but was worried about a movie “with no guys in ties, no spandex, nobody has capes, there are no guns, and it’s in space.” According to Lubezki, Cuarón replied, “I wrote it for Angelina! And Angelina immediately said yes!”

    From New York Time:

    The money for “Gravity” came very quickly, especially because Angelina Jolie was originally set to star. In Mr. Cuarón’s mind, though, the movie was never supposed to be a big deal. “That was a miscalculation,” Mr. Lubezki said. “He told me: Only one actor, in space, it can’t get any simpler. We can do it in a couple of months.”

  55. dahlianoir says:

    Finally saw Gravity, who do i have to sell my soul to to get Bullock’s body ? That woman has great, GREAT legs.

  56. The special effects of Gravity were amazing. The storyline, however, wasn’t possible, and no, that’s not just my opinion (I’m a step removed from a major astronaut, and did some asking). The characters were major gender stereotypes, and we knew so little about them that I just didn’t care about them. When a movie would have been better without the dialogue, you know there’s trouble. I wanted to love this movie. The premise sounded amazing and I’m a fan of the two cast members. I got my hands on an Oscars screener copy of the movie, and destroyed it because I was so let down.