Viggo Mortensen talks sh-t about Peter Jackson, LOTR: ‘It was very sloppy’


The saying in Hollywood was “Never discuss what roles you passed on or who you slept with.” That was the old rule. The new rule is “anything goes.” I’ve been reading some new interviews with Viggo Mortensen and it doesn’t sound like he has anymore sh-ts to give. I was trying to think: how would I treat these quotes if they came from a woman rather than a man? The answer, I suppose, is that I would say that she sounds sort of unprofessional and bitchy. So I’ll say that about Viggo. Now, is he in fact unprofessional and bitchy? Or is he just answering questions honestly, with his genuine opinions? You be the judge. First, Viggo goes off on Peter Jackson in The Telegraph – you can read the full piece here (the interviewer says Viggo is only 5’10”!!), and here are some bitchy quotes:

The Lord of the Rings trilogy shoot was chaos: “Anybody who says they knew it was going to be the success it was, I don’t think it’s really true. They didn’t have an inkling until they showed 20 minutes in Cannes, in May of 2001. They were in a lot of trouble, and Peter had spent a lot. Officially, he could say that he was finished in December 2000 – he’d shot all three films in the trilogy – but really the second and third ones were a mess. It was very sloppy – it just wasn’t done at all. It needed massive reshoots, which we did, year after year. But he would have never been given the extra money to do those if the first one hadn’t been a huge success. The second and third ones would have been straight to video.”

He thinks The Fellowship of the Ring is the best: “It was very confusing, we were going at such a pace, and they had so many units shooting, it was really insane. But it’s true that the first script was better organised. Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.”

He thinks Peter Jackson uses too much CGI: “I guess Peter became like Ridley Scott – this one-man industry now, with all these people depending on him. But you can make a choice, I think. I asked Ridley when I worked with him (on 1997’s GI Jane), ‘Why don’t you do another film like The Duellists [Scott’s 1977 debut]?’ And Peter, I was sure he would do another intimately scaled film like Heavenly Creatures, maybe with this project about New Zealanders in the First World War he wanted to make. But then he did King Kong. And then he did The Lovely Bones – and I thought that would be his smaller movie. But the problem is, he did it on a $90 million budget. That should have been a $15 million movie. The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”

[From The Telegraph]

I’ve never had a dog in this fight. I didn’t care one little bit about the LOTR trilogy, and I tend to agree with Viggo that “a Peter Jackson production” has become synonymous with “bloated-budgets, CGI hackery.” But that’s me. It’s quite different for Viggo to say it about the director who cast him in perhaps his most famous role. Is it rude? Unprofessional? Or just truthy?

Viggo also inadvertently slammed The Talented Mr. Ripley when comparing it to his film, The Two Faces of January: “Our movie is less gaudy. It’s more of a Highsmith movie. Because The Talented Mr Ripley is really trying very hard for you to see that it’s this period, and it’s these clothes, and it’s these houses.” Er… but, Mr. Ripley was a beautiful film?! WTH?

And in another interview, Viggo says that he was offered and turned down “two parts” in Man of Steel – I’m guessing the parts that went to Kevin Costner and Michael Shannon? He does say that he would like to do a part in a superhero movie at some point though. Maybe they should get him to play the Batfleck.


Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

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

145 Responses to “Viggo Mortensen talks sh-t about Peter Jackson, LOTR: ‘It was very sloppy’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Frida_K says:

    The latest installation of LOTR (the Wrath of Smaug one–whatever that one was called) was so bad that I saw it once and that was it. The others, I saw more than once just out of desire to capture details, to truly experience, etc. This last one: once and I pondered getting up and leaving during the movie a couple times.

    It’s a mess. Viggo is being a little bitchy and unprofessional but he’s also being honest and on-target.

    • Eve says:

      The Desolation Of Smaug — awful, awful, awful!

      I tried to watch it (a friend lent me his DVD) but couldn’t go through the whole thing so I skipped to the Cumberbatch-voicing-Smaug parts. Not even then I could watch it.

      I remember that when I saw bits of the “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey”, my first thought was: “The Desolation Of Smaug” can’t possibly be worse than this. I was wrong.

      • kri says:

        @Eve-even Cumby’s voice couldn’t fix that broke down palace of a movie. Viggo is Viggo. Unlike Franco, I feel like he’s an true artist, and is being honest. He’s not really trashing Peter personally, just doin some truth-telling about the LOTR thing. However, I liked the The Talented Mr. Ripley alot.

      • Eve says:

        @ Kri:

        That is one bad movie. I couldn’t believe the amount of time dedicated to show that ridiculous scene showing the dwarves going down the waterfall (in those barrels). It was a never-ending scene! Wait a minute, that’s what it feels like every single scene in Jackson’s movies for the past ten years!!!

        I had seen people talking about it but I thought it was a photoshopped joke when I saw this:

        That’s an actual (and, trust me, very long) scene from the movie.

      • Happyhat says:

        I also think the Smaug bits were the only good bits of the second film. Most of it I’m just waiting, forever waiting. However, I love that kinda stuff so I still enjoy it.

        (Funny: Two Towers is my fav. LOTR movie. But yeah – CGI overload. Careful Peter, look what happened to George Lucus!)

        I do think what it could have been like as a del Toro film but alas we’ll never know.

        And of Viggo – I agree with others. It may be truthful, but it’s unprofessional and unnecessary. Don’t spit on the hand that gave you the career push to give you the time and money to make your little poetry albums. Write it in your diary and have it published when you die, like everyone else does.

      • Ally says:

        Even the dragon bits were awful visually — the dragon’s size proportionally to the hobbit kept changing.

    • Tatjana says:

      I love LOTR, but The Hobbit wasn’t nearly as good.
      As for the CGI, such huge fantasy movies require a lot of CGI.

      • stickershock says:

        But the thing is, The Hobbit is NOT a huge fantasy. It’s a quaint little fairy tale with some comedic elements. It’s short, it’s to the point. Peter Jackson is making it into a HUUUGE epic when it’s not meant to be. This says 2 things to me.

        1. He wants to relive his LOTR days. Let’s face it. He got some praise and box office success with Fellowship and let it go to his head. He was never the same director again after that. The way he’s making the hobbit to me is like how an old football player keeps talking about that one game they had in highschool and never lets anyone else forget it, either.

        2. He never cared about the story at all… Seriously. A faithful hobbit adaption. Is that a story worth telling on screen when it was harkened to so warmly and affectionately in Fellowship? These new movies kinda sully that affection.

      • Ronia says:

        @ stickershock

        Ditto! The problem is there is a vast majority out there who, like Tatjana, are lead by Peter Jackson to think/believe whatever suits him and not by Tolkien. Very troubling thought.

    • Crank says:

      I loved Smaug, not obsessed though.
      But seriously the original trilogy is quite good, and ROTK is damn near perfect…thirst are the movies that made him a name, so I really think it’d be smart for him to shit his mouth. He hasn’t done squat since then that’s memorable.
      I agree the hobbit movies use too much CGI and they’re not the greatest, but he seems to be slamming the original trilogy, which really is a staple in cinema…a huge undertaking.

      • Ronia says:

        Nonsense. His collaboration with Cronenberg has prodused worldwide examples of good film making.

    • elisa says:


      I kind of agree with him too. The first film of the trilogy was the best and ever one after has gotten steadily worse. I only saw the first Hobbit film, mainly because I adore Richard Armitage, but even he could not make me see the second.

      Then again, I absolutely detest so much CGI in films.

      • Okie says:

        When they made Fellowship of the Ring, they put Christmas lights behind a camera so that they would reflect in Cate Blanchett’s eyes. When they made Desolation of Smaug, they digitally painted on Orlando Bloom’s face (at the very least they made him blue-eyed, but I’m not convinced they didn’t try to make him look younger while they were at it). I was impressed with how seamless the CGI was in LOTR, especially by Return of the King. In The Hobbit films, entire sequences look like they were flat-out animated and lack ANY realism. It is such a huge disappointment, especially for someone like me, who watched ALL of the making of documentaries for LOTR and was impressed by the miniatures/bigatures/makeup/WETA. Seems like all of that was abandoned for CGI this go around.

        So I don’t know how to feel about Viggo’s comments. I completely agree with him, and like someone else said, he’s very serious and artistic about his work. He used to sleep in his costume and carry around his sword to achieve a more “authentic” performance as Aragorn, so I can imagine that the movement away from the more realism-based filmmaking grated on him. But it does strike as biting the hand that feeds you, too. I guess we know why he didn’t want to reprise Aragorn for The Hobbit.

      • mom2two says:

        @Okie…not that they could have made Viggo younger with CGI, but Aragorn would have been in 20’s (for whatever that meant in Middle Earth) and he would have been too old to reprise the part. Though I would have been happy to see him!

      • Allie says:

        “they digitally painted on Orlando Bloom’s face”

        Omg! I just finally got to see ‘Smaug’ yesterday and Bloom’s face was incredibly distracting. It was a train wreck I couldn’t tear my eyes from! I knew they did some digital correcting, but I think he also gained some weight and that weight plus the inhuman smoothness of his face made him look bloated.

    • starrywonder says:

      Yep. Someone needs to have a Come to Jesus with Peter Jackson for real. His movies have gotten to be too big to edit apparently. Look at him taking over because he kept fighting with Guillermo about how to film the Hobbit. King Kong was a hot mess. Lovely Bones had great source material but besides the scenes in heaven that entire movie was awful.

    • mom2two says:

      If you read the whole interview he says the first one (Fellowship) was done with not as much CGI as the Two Towers and Return of the King and probably those two were done with less CGI than the Hobbit movies. I love the LoTR trilogy and it doesn’t come across well that he’s saying what he’s saying…but I think Viggo pretty much says and does what he wants and I think he would say that to Peter Jackson himself. Also, I don’t think Viggo is wrong with what he says about CGI in those movies. Although I don’t think you will ever see Viggo in another Peter Jackson movie.
      And he is right, the Two Towers and Return of the King needed a lot of reshoots. Despite some good acting in the Hobbit trilogy (Freeman, Armitage, etc.) those movies have not held a candle to the original LOTR. I don’t think Viggo is wrong in saying that Jackson and Ridley Scott could do well to go back to basics with future projects.
      It might not be the most PC thing to say, but Viggo is one who shied away from a bigger career post LoTR, so I think anyone who works with him knows they will get a good actor but they will also get one that speaks his mind.
      And if he is slamming the use of CGI, don’t expect him in a superhero movie anytime soon. Though I think he’d make a good Doctor Strange for Marvel.

    • Wilma says:

      I like it that he’s giving his honest opinion. Very refreshing. Would be nice if more people started doing this. And I don’t feel it’s done in a snarky, bitchy tone.

      • Belle Epoch says:

        Viggo is Viggo. He has always been different. I don’t think he was being ungrateful or snarky, and I’m sure he would say the same things to Peter’s face. Besides, he’s right.

      • bella says:

        I totally agree Wilma. We are so used to see artists lying about everything just to get new roles, that is a relief know that someone is capable to not sell the own soul for fame and money.

    • Kaylen says:

      They asked Viggo to be a part of the newer films and he told them… You know my character’s not in those books, right? They were going to make it so that he was. He’s read the books. I think he had respect for the story. Maybe not the films so much.

      • starrywonder says:

        Yeah I remember that I was like eh what? I hate that they included so much of Gandalf and Gladerial and that dumb love triangle with a dwarf and Evagenline Lily (whose character did not even freaking exist!!!)

      • Chinoiserie says:

        Well I do not remember it anymore that well but I think it was just just a journalist asking him if he was willing to go back and not the studio.

      • SK says:

        I think they added the female elf and Galadriel in because otherwise there would be no females in these three films. I love Tolkien; but a world with no females is ridiculous.

      • Lauraq says:

        I feel like it would have been ok to add the things with Gandalf, Galadriel, and Saruman-even Aragorn-, just to show what was going on behind the scenes and how it all led to the events in LOTR. All the information about what happened while the dwarves and Bilbo were headed to the Lonely Mountain is in the appendices of LOTR, so we know what went down, and I could see how they would want to add it to tie everything together.
        Still, The Hobbit was a short children’s book and they could have told the entire story plus the behind the scenes stuff in one three hour movie. They didn’t need to make a bunch of shit up so that they had three three hour movies. It’s a terrible problem in fantasy book-to-film treatments. The Narnia movies in particular. A 120 page book doesn’t need to be bloated up into a three hour movie!

    • Sixer says:

      I’d be inclined to see what Viggo says as critical rather than bitchy. It seems we see these as synonyms too often to me. But then, I just put him on my list yesterday, so he’s on a list-bounce today and I’m being kind.

      Anyhow. As I see it, what with bigger, better, posher tellies and streaming services, all the storytelling is heading to TV. Cinema would probably wither away without CGI. Like Viggo, I don’t care for CGI, endless fight or chase scenes or, more importantly, the concomitant lack of plot, speeches in dialogue and character development in many films. But it doesn’t matter to me: I just watch TV instead. If I were a storytelling feature film director (or actor) I’d be thinking of jumping ship.

      • Eve says:

        Disagree about the CGI — it is much needed for the kind of movies I’ve been enjoying lately (sci-fi — which is an “always” to me — and comic book based ones) but still like and agree with the rest of your comment.


      • Sixer says:

        Yeah. Fair enough. I’ll qualify. Cos I like sci-fi, too.

        I’m quite happy with CGI – provided it’s not there at the cost of plot, dialogue or character. But if, as all too often happens, we have a string of CGI-based scenes strung together with about a dozen lines of dialogue, a narrative full of holes barely managing to even masquerade as an actual plot, and peopled with a bunch of stocks instead of credible characters, then I don’t like it.

        I’m agreeing with Viggo, ain’t I?

      • Eve says:

        Yes, you are.

        But in that context you both sound right. For instance, the CGI used in “District 9” (which was produced by Jackson, by the way) is FLAWLESS. You can hardly tell which are the scenes that had been altered (actually, I can’t — the only reasons I know that is because there aren’t “alien prawns” in South Africa and the fact I watched the behind the scenes feature) and the story is beautifully told.

      • Sixer says:

        District 9 rocks the house! I love that film.

        It might well be my own bias/prejudice, but that’s what I took from what Viggo said: he doesn’t like CGI overtaking the other elements of a film – actually becoming the film.

        I guess he could equally just be a crabbity old misery guts but, um, I have those tendencies too, don’t I? So I’d be rich to moan about that.

        Either way then: he’s still on my classy older man list.

      • Eve says:

        Ugh, the grammar in my previous comment is a mess. Forgive me (I could see them beind made but couldn’t find a way to fix them).

    • original kay says:

      Those Hobbit movies are terrible.

      I agree with him, Fellowship was the best one for pure acting and story telling.

      I love the trilogy though, watch it over and over.

    • Dame Snarkweek says:

      I love Viggo so much but I can’t help but remember how Megan Fox was slammed for being an ungrateful b for criticizing the direction Transformers took during filming. She didn’t complain about the long hours or the physical demands or the color of the M&Ms in her dressing room. She complained about being asked to lean seductively over a motorcycle when the scene didn’t call for it. She complained about the beligerent attitude of the director and the frat boy mentality fostered on the set. But because Fox didn’t strike anyone as particularly smart or talented the conversation became about how she just should’ve stfu and smile .hollywood misogyny 101.

      • mom2two says:

        Keep in mind though that Megan Fox also compared Michael Bay to Hitler, which I think was the comment that really ticked off Bay and Spielberg. Her complaining about the unnecessary sexualization of the character was spot on and I think if she could have used different words but said the same thing about Bay and the set atmosphere, her comments would have went over better. But you are right, because she does not have the rep for being smart (even though she could be) the response was, “be quiet and don’t bite the hand that made you a star…”

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Your points are excellent. Thanks for reminding me about the Hitler comparison. I just hated the whole patronizing tone of the backlash and the ensuing outspoken female as critical, bitchy harpy rollout by the Transformers cast and crew. But yes, a better turned out criticism would have kept Fox’s observations in stronger focus.

      • Kath says:

        Then there is the Katherine Heigl comparison. Everything she said about Knocked Up and Grey’s Anatomy was 100% true – yet being ‘honest’ destroyed her career.

        Perhaps she is an unpleasant pain in the backside as well, but there are a million males actors for whom this is also true (Sean Penn, Bruce Willis, Shia La Butthead et al), and it doesn’t seem to stop producers hiring them.

      • Lauraq says:

        My only problem with that is that she knew what the part was when she got it. She was fine with auditioning for the movie by washing Michael Bay’s car, she had read the script-the sexualization of her character was stupid, but it’s not like she walked in blind.

    • Ronia says:

      Viggo is right. He may be lacking tact here but he is not lacking a professional eye. The Hobbit is an ugly story already. It’s so pumped up with unexisting plots, characters and unnecessary CGI that it turned into a joke. I totally agree with Viggo that the FOTR has the best, the truest feeling partly because of the usage of true landscapes. I also agree that down the road the TT and the ROTK were gradually adding more and more of the typical Peter Jackson greed for too much of everything. To the point where in the Hobbit Legolas was put on a CGI horse who, on top of that, looks obviously CGI ! That’s where this road goes and I stopped watching the Peter Jackson attempts to present Tolkien to me.

      • scylla74 says:

        I totally agree. I love the LOTR films but the ROTK really had much more CGI and more gigantomania then the first two. And I also feel that it makes it less gritty.

        After I saw the Hobbit I never bothered to go see Desolation of Smaug. I was over it.

    • Christine says:

      Well, the barrel scene was taken from the book…it was just executed very poorly.

    • Samtha says:

      I agree with you. I loved the original but the Hobbit movies have been bloated and terrible.

      He probably shouldn’t have said it (because of the crazed fans if nothing else), but…where’s the lie?

  2. Seán says:

    It’s unprofessional but he definitely has a point. I adore The Lord of the Rings trilogy but the special effects did increase on a grandiose scale from The Two Towers onwards. The Hobbit trilogy is just a bloated CGI fest which is such a shame.

    • Crank says:

      How else were they going to do Ents and huge battles? He actually used more real people and miniature scales and props than most movies today that are fantasy, and he did it well. He blended them well. Now the hobbit movies are definitely too CGI driven, and they’re not blended nearly as well. The CGI orcs drive me crazy. But I thought he did the best with the original trilogy, ROTK is my favorite.

      • Madi says:

        I’m with you Crank. Of course the first LOR didn’t need much CGI but as the stories progressed they needed it. And the ROTK is my favourite too.

    • Ronia says:

      I’m with you. There should be a limit and it’s been lost.

    • Seán says:


      I don’t have a problem with the CGI used in The Two Towers and The Return of the King. It was blended in seamlessly and I haven’t seen any film or television show come close to the level of realism and grandiosity than The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It looked like it was ripped straight from the novels. However, I do understand Viggo’s complaints. Many book fans as well as the Tolkien estate were annoyed with the level of action sequences in TTT and TROTK. Sure, there are battle sequences in the books but they weren’t quite as big and as spectacular as what we seen on film. Because of these plotlines, some of the quieter subplots of the novel were taken out. I felt the quality was still there with LOTR which is sadly lacking in The Hobbit. I hate the CGI Orcs (the make-up/costumed Orcs in LOTR were terrifying), the cartoony CGI and the need to split a short kid’s novel into an epic trilogy that fails to capture that epic feel. I found An Unexpected Journey quite dull while Desolation of Smaug was an improvement but still very flawed.

  3. in_theory says:

    I love the original LOTR trilogy, and even that was already a wee bit too CGI-heavy, especially the third movie. The two new Hobbit movies so far are way over the top, in my opinion. But then, Peter Jackson is hardly the first to fall into that particular trap.

    As for Viggo – I think his slamming of the production of LOTR 15 years later was quite unnecessary.

    • Buckwild says:

      Maybe I’m being “easier” on him since he’s a man but this didn’t sound that bitchy to me. He had justification for why he thought this way with examples and stories, and he stated his opinion eloquently. Maybe he was just lucky to not be edited but I only find it annoying when celebrities say “X changed everything, but it was a cr*ap film.” And then doesn’t say anything to explain why except just whine.

    • Rice says:

      The LOTR Trilogy are my favourite movies, so much so that I have the boxset with extended scenes and commentaries. Therefore, I’ll have to say that Viggo sounds unprofessional and bitchy. He’s an actor, not a producer/director. The movies needed the CGI because of the imagery presented in the books (they even had to create a programme to execute the large battle scenes). Even J.R.R. Tolkien’s grandson (or son?) liked the final product. Plus, Viggo’s Aragon is his biggest claim to fame (so far).

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      Viggo has always been like this, he just says what he thinks, I guess, or he speaks without thinking about the fall out. His dislike of CGI is understandable as he’s an actor. I too liked the LOTR trilogy and am disappointed with the overblown trilogy for the Hobbit.

  4. pru says:

    I’m confused, is he slamming the production/shooting or how the movies turned out? Because it sounds like he is talking about production to me.
    I have to agree about the CGI – I think it’s gotten out of control.

    • GeeMoney says:

      From what I’ve read, it sounded like he was saying that the production was a mess, not necessarily how the movies turned out. How come you and I were like, the only two people who got that out of what he said?!? Everyone else on this site must be reading something completely different.

      CGI has totally gotten out of control nowadays, but I agree with someone up thread – the Lord of the Rings trilogy were fantasy films with wizards and what not, so yeah, you need CGI for that type of stuff. I don’t think it ruined those films at all.

      PS – The Desolation of Smaug was AWFUL. Not even Orlando Bloom looking all kinds of HOT as Legolas and Cumby’s voice as Smaug could save that movie.

      • maria lane says:

        I got it also. There is so much going on in the ROTK though. You are working in 3 separate areas where the fellowship is split up, so I understand that it would get chaotic. I have been on the fence with the Hobbit. Saw them both in the theatre but have had no desire to watch again on DVD.
        I completely agree that making 3 movies out of it was ridiculous and unnecessary. I honestly can’t think what they will fill 2 hours of a third movie with.

  5. Tapioca says:

    Ha! I’m glad there’s someone out there who agrees with me on this. Peter Jackson was ace when he made Bad Taste, Meet the Feebles, Brain Dead and The Frighteners, but in everything from LOTR onwards it just seems like the “Oh, look – epic CGI!” is taking over from the heart and soul of the stories.

    And don’t get me started on the pointless filler injected into The Hobbit to turn it into “The Cynical Money-Grab Trilogy”…

    • starrywonder says:

      Yep. He had a lot of source material that he skipped over to film what my friends called it, Dwarves and Elves gone wild. There is no way he is going to be able to get everything into the third movie.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      I forgot he did The Frighteners, I enjoyed that movie very much, a great role for Michael J. Fox!

  6. smee says:

    Well, I agree with him on the over-use of CGI.

  7. blue marie says:

    I’m going to be honest, of the trilogy I’ve seen 2 & 3. I tried several times to watch the first but I kept falling asleep so I gave up on it.

  8. Josephine says:

    I hardly think he is “slamming” anything. He is anti-CGI because it de-emphasizes the acting, and he said so. He is truly an actor, not a celeb, not just a pretty face, and he’s always been very honest. He also puts his money where his mouth is — he has taken roles in many smaller movies and has turned down many blockbusters. He did LOTR because his son loved the books, and he was a very last minute addition to the movie. No one knew it would become the huge movie that it did.

    • mom2two says:

      Yup. Viggo did come on to the LOTR production at the last hour and his son convinced him to do it. I still remember hearing what a big gamble those movies were going to be because New Line was making three of them without any indication of how the first one was going to do. So there was a lot of onus on Fellowship to do well. I think once it did well, then they got the extra money to do what they did with the reshoots.
      And honestly, he is not slamming the movies without giving an eloquent reason why. Peter Jackson might not like what he has to say, but he’s making his money.

  9. Beth says:

    I love the LOTR movies intensely, but I think The Hobbit movies have way too much CGI and if it weren’t for Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan I wouldn’t even watch them.

  10. Cora says:

    Viggo is 100% spot on in his analysis of LOTR and the Hobbit films. Fellowship was the best (and one of my all time favourite films) but the rest went steadily downhill from there. Far too much CGI, poor pacing and editing, and bloated running times.

  11. MediaB says:

    I think it’s unprofessional – why talk shit now all these years later? I guess the money ran out, and Professional Ac-tor Viggo is upset it’s what he’s best remembered for. At the time he didn’t seem to enjoy the boys own adventure that the rest of the cast were on, either.

    I also think he’s totally right about the films. And the Hobbit “trilogy” has only provided a further demonstration that Peter Jackson, god love him, really needs to be on a short leash.

    And did anyone think that Viggo was taller than 5.10? Really? Same height as Cumby (c’mon we all know it 😉 ).

    • Lina says:

      Viggo actually spoke of the overuse of CGI at the time of the trilogy. I remember it because I had the same thoughts myself. Jackson had said something along the lines of “These films weren’t possible to make until now” and Viggo meant that it could have been done without the CGI, if you were a little creative and inventive.
      I don’t always mind CGI (Sci-fi fan here) but I think it is used as a “short cut” far too often.

  12. Samantha25 says:

    I love the LOTR trilogy. The CGI doesn’t bother me. I hate The Hobbit. I only saw the first movie but it was a mess. There were too many storylines and way too long.

    • Crank says:

      Even though some disagree, I liked Smaug better than the first. Still dissapointing and too much CGI, but the dragon was awesome (even though it got way too long)

  13. Miss Jupitero says:

    I find any truthfulness from Hollywood to be refreshing. Everyone is so packaged and PR dominated nowadays, nothing feels authentic. If he doesn’t have any more shits to give, I applaud.

    • balehead2012 says:

      I agree. Everything in Hollywood is so carefully sifted nowadays, so we only get the retouched pictures, the perfectly composed statements issued by the agents, the actors saying how everything was truly wonderful when filming this or that, how everybody was such good friends, how amazing this or that was…
      It is truly refreshing to hear Viggo’s honest opinion, especially, because he makes a good point and doesn’t just talk to trash somebody. If this is how he really feels, why shouldn’t he be allowed to state his opinion?
      When stars issue some carefully worded statements, we complain that they actually say nothing and dance around the subject, but when somebody actually tells us his/her honest opinion about a subject, we don’t like that either.

    • Sixer says:

      Ditto Miss J.

  14. Gwen says:

    I totally agree with him – he’s spot on about The Hobbit movies too – but this is very unprofessional IMO. If he wasn’t Viggo (and especially if he was a woman) he’d be slayed for this.

  15. Penny says:

    He’s entirely right about Jackson. I don’t even understand why the man makes movies anymore. He’s clearly only interested in the CGI at this point and he’s made himself an expert on it, so why not just go be a consultant on other people’s movies and let someone else focus on annoying things like plot and characterization and pacing and editing?

    And I like the Talented Mr. Ripley (mostly because of Jude and PSH) but it did go too far trying to remind everyone it was a period film, and that approach can take you out of the film. Like with CGI, everything’s too perfect, which reminds you it’s all fake. The best period films are the ones where you can forget you’re watching a period film, not the ones where every two minutes your eyes are being purposefully directed to a replica of a classic car or a period perfect hat or skirt, as if to say ‘look how much effort we put into getting these things right’.

    I don’t really understand why it’s a problem when actors talk about bad movies they’ve made or discuss who’s work they like and whose they don’t. Where I’m from integrity and honesty are what’s valued in the workplace, someone who just toes the line and kisses butt wouldn’t be respected at all. If you’ve worked in a disaster of a workplace or your old employer was churning out substandard work you should be able to say so instead of pretending everything’s rosy. Maybe it’s just a different cultural expectation?

    • in_theory says:

      I agree with the sentiment in your last paragraph, but why do it 15 years later and in such a way, as Viggo here has done? That just feels like bad form to me. And I’m not speaking about the CGI, but about what Viggo said in the first paragraph of the interview.

      Who knows, maybe he’s just pissed about getting asked about LOTR all this time later while he’s done so much stuff in between.

  16. Adrien says:

    I know lots of LotR fans who would agree with him. I know the author’s son didn’t like Jackson’s handling of the trilogy too. They got caught up in visual effects. Still they’re enjoyable movies.

  17. Sarah says:

    he is right about The Hobbit at least. it was ok for me in the third LotR, Jackson even said he never liked the army of undead (dont know the real name), but it played a vital part in the story.
    if its bitchy or not is based on the tone for me. Megan Fox outright dissed Michael Bay personally, Viggo sounds more like he doesnt understand and is sad and disappointed. the shade for Mr Ripley is bitchy.

    also how is 5’10 “only”? thats average height, lots of guys are smaller than that. i dont know why heightism is still accepted.

    • Happyhat says:

      I agree with you on heightism – I find it so weird. Height, for women anyway, is tainted by the modeling industry. Like, anything under 5’7″ is short and therefore ‘ugly’ or something.

      • GeeMoney says:

        Please. I’m 5’9″ and always felt like a giant compared to other women. Being tall like me is only cool on modeling runways, and in places like the grocery store where you grab things off of shelves for shorter people, nowhere else. And… it seems as if most men want shorter girls. I can’t tell you how many 6 foot plus guys I see with girls a foot shorter than them.

        PS – My dream in life as a little girl was to be a gymnast, and I was rejected for being too tall. And as many modeling cards as I received when I was in high school for being really skinny and tall, I thought that modeling was stupid and I never wanted to do it. WTF.

    • Tatjana says:

      I thought he was mucj taller too, probably because as Aragorn he was surrounded by hobbits.
      But 5’10 is on the smaller side for men, let’s not pretend it isn’t. Although it’s funny that Cumby is called tall here and he’s what, 183? That’s pretty average. And there’s nothing wrong with being short or tall.

  18. Luca26 says:

    Yeah it’s totally unprofessional to diss someone who made him a pile of cash and if he were a woman he would be hung out to dry in comments.

    That being said I agree with him.

  19. Esti says:

    I think he’s right about Jackson, but it was rude to say it. Those movies made his career, there’s no need to publicly slam the director. And I found the Mr. Ripley comment super bitchy. That movie was great, and from the trailer I’ve seen Viggo’s new one looks every bit as costumey (which isn’t even an insult in my books).

  20. grabbyhands says:

    This again? So misleading-he is talking about the shoot, not the movies themselves.

  21. feebee says:

    I have mixed feelings on this one. On one hand, if that how he feels, and it may be how a lot of others feel but no-one has said anything, then that’s one thing.

    However, it doesn’t sound good on many levels. Just because he didn’t appreciate all the CGI… there are probably many, many fans who were blown away by it.

    I appreciate his acting and straight talking but sometimes cushioning the blow is good too.

  22. Marianne says:

    Even if he’s being honest, it’s still really unprofessional to basically trash his past director.

  23. Tig says:

    There’s truthful, and then there’s ungrateful. These comments lean toward the latter. There’s certainly nothing wrong with noting that no one expected the first LOTR to do as well as it did, but then he essentially says P Jackson turned into a hack. This is the same “hack” that raised his profile considerably. This really reminds me of that interview that Kristen Scott Thomas did a few months ago-guess everyone has their grumpy cat moments.

  24. eliza says:

    Again, in the minority. LOVE every Tolkien Jackson has done. Some of my favorite movies ever.

    Viggo sounds the the jerk he has a reputation for being.

    • Reindeer says:

      I feel like I’m in the minority, too. I loved all the LOTR movies. The Hobbit was ok, but I thought DOS was awesome. I loved it! And I can’t wait for the third installment.

      • dromedary says:

        Me too. Loved, loved, loved all of the LOTR movies While the Hobbit isn’t as good, I thoroughly enjoyed being taken into that world again, and seeing the reprisal of several characters us fans had grown to love in the LOTR series. Plus loved lots of the new casting choices ( James Nesbitt! Aidan Turner! Bret McKenzie! Benedict Cumberbatch!).

      • Sighs says:

        I really enjoyed DOS. Yes, there were parts that were unnecessary, but as a whole it was much more streamlined and flowed better than Unexpected Journey. And some of the acting is quite well done. Armitage and Freeman, in particular. I thought Smaug was fantastic.
        It can be a CGI overload, but name me a superhero movie in the past 10 years that isn’t.

    • Hiddles forever says:

      I don’t know about Viggo being a jerk but LOTR movies are my favourites EVER, especially the last two.
      Sorry Viggo, I don’t agree with you, I actually fell asleep in Fellowship of the Ring lol

  25. db says:

    He sounds like he’s at that age where he’s going to say whatever is on his mind and doesn’t give a damn what people think. Also I think it was Viggo who led the actors on LOTR to band together to negotiate better $$ terms

  26. Sarah says:

    Is it bitchy when it is truth? I am always amazed at the budgets given to Peter Jackson and then how obvious the CGI is. Granted, you have to CGI a dragon and Rivendel and Mordor. I get that. But New Zealand is a beautiful place. It really shouldn’t require as much as he does to it. My son loves the LOTR trilogy (except for Frodo – he has inherited my fervent loathing for the most horrendous “hero” ever written) and likes the Hobbit movies too. But then again, he is 12.

  27. Farah says:

    Alright, Katherine Heigl.

    If Viggo was a women he would’ve been burned by the stake for these comments. Imagine Jennifer Lawrence trash talking Hunger Games. Or Anne Hathaway talking about all the lesser movies she’s turned down. People would’ve loved to crucify them on the internet. Gotta love that misogyny and internalized misogyny.

    • Bridget says:

      I don’t think a H eigl comparison is quite right until Viggo and his momager start berating everyone they work with.

    • Bob Loblaw says:

      I don’t under stand how gender applies here at all. Or why you emphasis it. Viggo has long had a willingness to express himself openly, everyone is free to do that, if they don’t that is their choice. Heigl was bucking for more air time and attacking the show that made her a success and it’s creator, at the expense of her cast mates and the success of the show. Viggo was expressing his solicited opinion about a project he worked on more than ten years ago. Not equivalent in any way other than as incidents of criticism. Yes misogyny is all around us but contorting every story into a gender war is unnecessary and a stretch.

  28. Malificent says:

    I think Viggo is being professional. He’s not shading Jackson as a person, or insulting his ability to make a good movie when he chooses to. He’s just saying that Jackson took his movies in a direction that Viggo (and many of us) don’t agree with — heavy on the special effects — light on the characters and story. It’s the Boys with Toys Syndrome — all technology and no heart. Look what George Lucas did to the “first” Star Wars trilogy. Mostly excellent actors wasted in a sea of CGI because of crappy storytelling. If he’d tossed a bit of pocket change at really solid scriptwriting, the trilogy could have been worth something.

    • Jessica says:

      If this had been a woman saying these things, would it have still been “professional”?

      A woman would get trashed for saying these things. Hell, they’ve been trashed for saying less.

      • Malificent says:

        My comment was about Viggo’s statements as an individual. I wasn’t hopping on the gender issue — my comment was independent — it just happened to follow one of the gender-based comments in this thread. I agree with you that there is a double-standard based on gender, but the point of my comment was that Viggo was being professional because he was civil and courteous about his disagreement with Jackson’s direction with the movies.

      • Ronia says:

        Is this an American thing? All the “male” versus “female”? Because I have no problem defending or critisizing both genders, what’s the big difference? A person is either right or wrong to me, why should I care if they are a woman or not? I notice this happens on American boards a lot and is often used as some kind of defense for females – that they are overcritisized. Odd.

    • PerfectDate says:

      I like your “boys with toys” comment–spot on. Sometimes people get too focused on the bells and whistles and forget about the actual content (I am a teacher, this happens in education too)

  29. Jessica says:

    Damn. Tell us what you really think, Viggo. While I do think he’s telling the truth when it comes to Jackson, it’s pretty rude to call him out publicly like that. Viggo could have just said, “I prefer less CGI” and been done with it. He didn’t have to trash Jackson the way he did. Kind of tacky when LOTR is Viggo’s biggest role.

  30. Bridget says:

    People forget what a huge gamble theoLOGY trilogy was, and how out of the box it was that they shot all 3 at a time. A lot of money hinged on Fellowship being successful – a 3 hour movie without a ‘real’ ending about elves, hobbits, amd dwarves. It sounds like with getting Fellowship finished and ready they gambled and ran out of money, hoping it would be successful so they could get money to finish the other two. Its not like its totally crazy for a big, fancy blockbuster to run totally over budget, but the trilogy really was a gamble.

    And i’ll be polite and say his comments about Jackson’s filmmaking style are a matter of taste. I may agree with them, but LOTR was a milestone in Viggo’s career so it would be nice to at least be polite about it.

    • Bridget says:

      I can’t edit, but I want to add: of course it was confusing. Jackson had never directed anything that scale before, and they handed him a $200 million fantasy epic. Remember the stories about WWZ?

    • 'P'enny says:

      bob on.

      Viggo, is being very ungrateful and unappreciative of the sheer scale and people involved in filming LOTR trilogy, this was at a time when Jackson was using a new level of CGI and puppetry. It was a learning curve for all in the industry and broke ground in the way Star Wars first did. And, in a country not known for having the film infrastructure/skills that was needed.

      The fact that previous attempts to bring LOTR to the table had consistently failed was because of the epic impossibility of delivering a vast story. CGI was needed in Two Towers more than FoR because of the vast armies and castles that were needed, you can’t create that by hiring 10000’s of people in a small country.

      You can’t create moving trees without CGI overwork. And, you couldn’t have brought Gollum and the Orcs alive without CGI work. What did want?

      Having visited Jackson’s very small Weta workshop, in New Zealand, I am amazed what a small team of hardworking artists and model makers have achieved for those films and for what he has delivered for New Zealand.

      Bad form Viggo.

  31. OhDear says:

    Damn it Viggo. Even if he has a point, I think it’s unprofessional to criticize people you’ve worked with publicly like that, especially in a published interview.

  32. luna says:

    Viggo, you do not bite the hand that feeds you!

    Return Of The King is my most favourite of the entire LOTR trilogy. Actually I love them all. I always rewatch them now and then after a few years and you have no idea how grateful I am to Peter Jackson for bringing the books to life.

  33. Ginger says:

    As a lifelong fan of the books I heartily agree with everything Viggo has said here. Is he being a bit bitchy? Probably but he’s also telling the truth. When I found out they were making the Hobbit into not three but four films? I was livid and found it ridiculous. I enjoyed the LOTR series to a point. I wasn’t as rabidly critical of it as some fans but I definitely did not like the second in the series at all. The first was fun. The third, meh. Right away I knew he was going to hack up the Hobbit because the book is short and even though Tolkien can be wordy, how on Earth are you going to make that book into four films? A LOT of creative license. My son and I do enjoy watching the films together since he is now reading the books too but even he has the same opinions as myself at only twelve years old. I think Peter Jackson might want to reevaluate his film making process when a twelve year old is saying his movies are embellished crap.

  34. tallo says:

    OMG I love Viggo and I loved lotr and the hobbit. I think Peter Jackson is awesome and a nice chap and that Viggo isn’t thrashing him he’s just being honest which is nice for a change compared to all the usual pr rehearsed answers. Go Viggo and Peter Jackson!!Oh yes must say awesome love for this website and all the celebitches xxxx

  35. Dizzybenny says:

    He doesn’t say anything about LOTR that wasn’t said in the making of.
    It was crazy they had more then 3 units shooting at the same time so that they could complete the movie.
    Actors went from one set to the next.
    The Hobbit is garbage!!
    All the Orcs are CG?!? I liked LOTR because you had guys in suits for the close-ups and CGI for the far away. Now it’s all CGI and even the world looks way to fake.
    It takes away to much of my attention.
    I wont say he’s biting the hand that feeds him, but I’ll say he’s nibbling at it.

    • Seán says:

      I believe three units are used to film Game of Thrones. Granted, that’s a television series with a tighter schedule, in four different countries and with a larger separated cast but for big ambitious film projects like both LOTR and GOT, it needs to be done. I do agree that Jackson is over-reliant on CGI nowadays and that his films have bloated budgets.

  36. Miss M says:

    I agree with everything he said. It may sound b*tchy, but I don’t think it was his intention. He gave an opinion/answered a question and explained the reason he had that opinion.

    The Hobbit shucks! I read the book, :/

  37. manta says:

    I wouldn’t call this trashing. At least, he seems very informed about the filmographies of the directors he’s talking about (I’m not sure many actors working today have seen The Duellists).

    Heavenly Creatures remains my favorite Jackson movie and one of Winslet’s most riveting performances .Mortensen seems to have followed his other projects and the fact that he regrets the “non making” of the film bout the New Zealanders in the 1st World Ward is mainly an acknowledgement of his talent as a story teller.

    And then , he mitigates his critics about CGI and the trap it can be when he admits many people depend on them. So no, not ready to lump him with Megan Fox on this one.

  38. aenflex says:

    The end result is a great movie, every time, for Jackson. I understand any actor’s frustration with chaos and superfluous opulence. But from my perspective as an audience member, Jakcson’s movies have always blown me away.

    • GirlyGirl says:

      even “The Frighteners” ?

    • Ronia says:

      All Jackson movies, excluding the LOTR trilogy, are bad, IMO. Pure bad. I managed to watch half of each of them and I was amazed how bad they were.

  39. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    Great interview – he is right.

  40. Penelope says:

    I’ll give Viggo a pass because he’s so awesome.

    And also, he happens to speak the truth.

  41. whateveryouwantittobe says:

    I don’t really think he sounds bitchy. I agree about the overuse of CGI, I detest it! It has ruined a lot of movies for me. I accept a certain amount of experimentation by filmmakers but starting with the new Star Wars Episodes to King Kong & some Tim Burton films it’s only cheapened & ruined what might’ve been (from my point of view anyway).

    I would much prefer to see Jim Henson like special effects because there was realism at the end of it. It’s been a long time since I saw the LOTR but I remember only really liking one and being pretty bored to be honest, ( and I’m a Wellingtonian, so this is an opinion I pretty much just kept to myself here hah).

  42. GirlyGirl says:

    He’s right. Watch the trilogy again and you’ll see they’re all pretty messy. The CGI, sets, costumes, makeup and stuff are all great, but those elements are really a movie’s “window dressing”.

    The acting could be very stiff, the editing was terrible and the pacing of the movies was uneven.

    The actual cinema parts of LOTR were incredibly sloppy, people loved them because they were massive spectacles, but when the dust clears they’re all kinda crappy

  43. siri says:

    Viggo is not slamming anybody, he simply shares his honest opinion when asked. I don’t see a problem with that. For him as an artist, it’s about the story, and the characters interacting, so I understand his view. And I’m sure he wouldn’t be shy to share it with P.Jackson- if he didn’t already do so.

  44. Camille (The Original) says:

    Bitchy and very unprofessional in my opinion.

  45. Mabs says:

    I’m an LOTR super fan…coincided quite nicely with the literature, but alas…Jackson pissed me off with the Hobbit. My first bone of contention was the three separate movies. So not necessary and it illustrated Jackson’s greed (and delusion). Second bone was how it was filmed…it looked more like a character’s dream than an actual story. Third, the script itself. Hated the dialogues; his interpretations haven’t illuminated the books at all. Sad.

  46. Glendora says:

    Gosh, I don’t see anything wrong with what he said about LOTR or Peter Jackson. But he did sound a bit bitchy when discussing Talented Mr. Ripley.

  47. Jane says:

    I think Viggo is right and there is nothing wrong with stating his opinion, but really I think for him to be slamming Peter Jackson’s budget and CGI addiction after all these years is pointless. First, the budget issue was between Jackson and the studio. It is easy for Viggo to criticize budget problems from where he is sitting, but the day he directs and/or writes/produces a motion picture is the day when I will pay more attention to him about that.

    LOTR had never been made into a movie prior because of the lack of special effects technology that bringing to life Tolkien’s fantasy would require. Jackson and the special effects company he worked did some ground breaking work in CGI for that movie. Jackson did go overboard, but IMO it was not that bad. But, that is just me.

    But, ultimately the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Despite too much CGI, too much money spent and constant reshoots, it all resulted in a huge hit that made Jackson and the studio lots and lots of money. It also made Viggo a much better known as an actor (I had never heard of him before LOTR), which in turn resulted in more work, more money and greater freedom in deciding which roles he wanted to do. I say Viggo got a very good deal out of that over budgeted, over CGI’d movie.

    • pru says:

      Agree with you on the CGI stuff. LOTR is kind of in it’s own league CGI-wise. I think he set a standard for other special effects movie that few others have been able to compare. For instance, SMAUG is the weakest of the Tolkien/Jackson series to me, but it will always be better than so many other CGI movies, like Transformers. It was just better done – better acting/directing/writing & effects. And the credit for that goes to the person at the helm – Jackson. I just worry that he is now trying to do too much.
      Still not on board with saying the statements he made were “slamming” the movies. I see them as more of a critique than a criticism. I think an actor with the movie making experience Viggo has is allowed to say what he wants about the process.

  48. CuriousCole says:

    Thank you, Kaiser, thank you for using an equality eye when assessing an article! I wish more of the media would do the same, and apply the same rules/names to both genders.

  49. Aye says:

    Bitchiness is very handy when you’re promoting a film. See what cumberbatch said about Downton Abbey when trying to promote a low-budget mini-series. When you’ve got a film due to come out, suddenly everyone remembers what happened on what set and who was an ass. Handy.
    The Lovely Bones was absolutely flat as a movie. King Kong was just okay. I don’t think Peter Jackson does emotive drama well. He’s good at monsters and action. Contrast with Del Toro, who is so much more interesting.
    Finally, Viggo’s a very, very good actor (but somewhat eccentric irl) and back in the days, when I was crazy enough about LOTR to watch every minute of the special features DVDs, he was an absolute gentlemen and absolutely lovely in the interviews. I will definitely be watching this film – Isaac and Dunst are also excellent actors.

    • Ronia says:

      Same with me! I don’t like many of Jackson’s movies, I give him much credit though for bringing Tolkien to life – it wasn’t an easy job. I love the LOTR trilogy and despite being a book firster, I watch it every year and gladly allowed his liberties with the text. For the Hobbit I much hoped Del Toro would stay and I’ve never bought the explanations they gave when Del Toro left. He has an unique eye.

      P.S. Viggo is indeed a very talented person and very nice but he also very honest, IMO.

  50. raincoaster says:

    Well, he’s not wrong about Peter Jackson’s movie. And whoever said Viggo is 5’10” is also right; I’ve met Viggo a couple of times. Still, since I’m from Vancouver, he’s about 60% taller than any man I know.

    • PerfectDate says:

      Would you care to elaborate on when you met him? Very curious. I’ve been a fan of Viggo since TROTK. I thought I read that Sarah from Cinesnark (and LaineyGossip) had a bad encounter with him (I am unsure of details) so I am wondering what your take is?
      I have seen a lot of interviews, follow Perceval Press (his publishing company), and from what I can see he seems an intelligent, articulate, straight-forward guy, with a few quirks like any of us have. He seems to love being an artist in many forms, not just acting, and I respect that. Thanks!

      • Ronia says:

        Don’t know about raincoaster but I’ve met Viggo two times at the TIFF. He is super cool but I just realised when I saw him and spoke with him that I had liked Aragorn, not Viggo. In general, Viggo is quite hostile towards gossip sites, tabloids, paps, etc. May be he knew this person was from such and acted accordingly. We’ve never had issues with him – something very rare in this industry.

  51. Nicole says:

    I have the same taste in movies as Viggo Mortensen? Uh…

  52. Goodnight says:

    I think the comments about Peter Jackson and LOTR are completely on-target. Doesn’t stop me from loving the movies (though I love the books more). He wasn’t throwing shade, he was giving an opinion on a series of movies shot over a decade ago. Peter Jackson’s movies used to be amazing (the first one I ever saw was brain dead and < 333 ) but even though The Hobbit is one of my favourite books I can hardly sit through the Hobbit movies. I was so excited for them, too.

    The stuff about the Talented Mr. Ripley did come across as kind of bitchy, though. From what I know of Viggo, he's a very honest and open person who doesn't sugarcoat things, but he's also a pretty quiet person. I can absolutely believe he turned down roles in the Superman reboot, he only does the jobs he wants to do and doesn't seem to care about money or fame.

  53. Fan says:

    He was also very good in the movie “The Road”.

  54. Lotta says:

    I worked with Peter Jackson and I think the reason why he likes CGI so much is that he can’t make a final descion and with CGI he can change things until the very end. Peter Jackson is a character, and a little bit weird, but I like him. I know he drives producers nuts by never being able to make up his mind, but every director has their weird way of working, and at least he (compared to Cameron) is a genuin nice guy. And look at all his done, building up the big film industry in NZ, he must somehow know what he is doing. And his movies makes money so he can’t be doing it totally wrong.

  55. Illyra says:

    If they ever do a film about Neil Armstrong, Viggo should be asked first if he wants the starring role.

  56. DrFunkenstein says:

    I don’t know, doesn’t sound particularly “bitchy” to me. Sounds like someone being honest about his opinion. He seemed fair, reasonable, and professional.

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      Agreed. Although he could do something about his own sloppiness (grooming, attire). Would a unknown actor show up looking like that at an audition or interview (for a job, I mean)?

      • DrFunkenstein says:

        LOL good point. I suspect being fabulously wealthy and really having nothing to lose might be part of the problem.

  57. A.Key says:

    This may be unprofessional of him, but he’s spot on, I totally agree with him. Maybe Jackson should do the unthinkable and actually stop and listen to the well-intended smart criticism. Because his movies have become shit in the past few years.