Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

lil bitchiness
New Hayden Christensen movie is getting released - that means droolistatic goodness.

Thanks Bilb and Naberrie for this find love


Hayden Christensen Leads Decameron
Source: The Hollywood Reporter
February 14, 2005

Hayden Christensen (Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith) will play the male lead in The Decameron, Dino De Laurentiis' upcoming adaptation of the 14th century Italian classic by Giovanni Boccaccio.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Christensen will play the role of Lorenzo, starring opposite Mischa Barton (The O.C.), who in December signed on for the lead female role, Pampinea.

The project will start shooting in April in Rome and Tuscany. " Decameron" is being directed and adapted by Britain's David Leland, whose helming credits include Band of Brothers.

Boccaccio's "Il Decameron" (c.1351) is a series of one hundred stories written in the wake of the Black Death. The stories are told in a country villa outside the city of Florence by ten young noble men and women who are seeking to escape the ravages of the plague.

Pier Paolo Pasolini directed an Italian-language version of the film in 1971. The trade adds that this new version is being designed to appeal to a younger audience and will include popular music as well as costumes from the Italian fashion designer Roberto Cavalli.

This should be good, even though i loathe Mischa Barton, Im really looking forward to this happy

Oh more Hayden Yumminess!!!

*starts a countdown* droolio

Bad move putting Hayden in a leading role this early in his "career", IMO. He's got no viable supporting actors like he did in "Shattered Glass"
which would have been less than mediocre if it weren't for the brilliant Mr. Sarsgaard.

But, it's not like anyone will see this movie, and if they do, it's more than likely not for the acting.

so true..I'm definitely not watching this movie

lil bitchiness
On the contrary - People will go see it because the story is a classic, if anything.

Hayden is a good actor, he showed that in Life as a House and Shattered Glass as well as Attack of the Clones, and we're waiting for Revenge of the Sith.

Also, I think being handpicked by George Lucas himself should suggest that he is good. If anything Mischa Barton is he talentless one in this.

"Life as a House", yes. "Shattered Glass", alls he had to do was play a liar. "Attack of the Clones", not hardly. He was either whining or scowling the entire movies. Mischa Barton put on a better performance puking under a cover in "The Sixth Sense" than Ani in "AOTC". He's too timid to be percieved as someone of authority, much less, evil.

Being picked by George Lucas doesn't mean much these days. He's an opportunistic, capitalist pig who has screwed the fans he cares nothing for time and time again for their money. On top of that, he's a mediocre director. Lucas IS way past his prime, has jumped the shark since the release of Indy, and has a penchant for ruining otherwise fantastic actors with his elementary scripts and dialogue.

But, I digress. I've never heard of this supposed "classic" play, and if it's such an important piece of literature, why are Gen Y'ers being cast to carry it? Laurentiis has has anything noteworthy since the Mid 80's as it is, so I hope tagging his name on it is supposed to generate buzz.

Pasolini was well known for his disturbing and gore masterpiece SALO. I never got to watch his version of the Decameron. I wonder if Pasolini's work will influnced David Leland movie. The thing that makes me unsure about this project is the idea of putting popular music into a film that relates work literature. We all remenber what happen to William Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet with Danes and Dicaprio. The fans love it whereas movie goers weren't impress with the work. I think is too early to discuss this movie. Let's wait for trailers and updates to see how this puppy will turn out to be.

I was going to mention "Romeo and Juliet", which produced just 2 volumes of great selling soundtracks. Not to mention the updated travesty in "O", or "Othello". For the sake of the fans of the guy's original works, lets pray it's not a complete modernization.

Silver Stardust
So you say. However, your opinion is not fact of any sort. Many, many people thought that he was good as Anakin, and if you've seen ANYTHING at all about ROTS you can clearly see that he IS able to be percieved as someone of authority or who is evil. Don't confuse the character with the actor; Lucas is the one who wrote Anakin that way in AOTC (which, btw, is spot-on for a teenage boy). Hayden Christensen didn't make him that way.

And you having not heard of a play doesn't mean a thing....

Anyway, I think that this will be a very interesting movie...I've never heard anything of it before, but the story sounds very good. Let's just hope it doesn't turn out like Romeo and Juliet did (oh GOD I hated that movie). Buuuut I won't make any judgments about whether I think it could be good or not until I see a trailer or something.

(and personally, I don't care for Mischa Barton either)

lil bitchiness
Lets get one thing clear here, for everyone's sake - just because YOU haven't heard of the certain piece of literature, doesnt mean it isnt a classic or a famous one. That is pretty obvious, i would think.

As for George Lucas being a capitalist pig - just because of that reason, it is in his best interest to have good actors in his movies - the better they are, the more money he will earn. Whatever you may think of George Lucas, he directed one of the most well known classic saga in the world - that stands, and it will stand 50 and 100 years from now.

Mischa Barton is a whiny little girl who knows absolutely nothing about acting. You compared her acting in The Sixth Sense which totaled one scene to Hayden Christensen's leading role in Star Wars. You compared a girl who is an actress in the most unrealistic and ridiculous teenage TV series, to a person who had done something worth while in his career. Yeah, clever.
First of all, Hayden as Anakin had a rather hard job to do - he needs to live up to the infamous Darth Vader - and so far he has done an incredible job.

Unlike you, Im not going to stand here and claim that the movie is going to be great or shit - because id hate to eat my words when i actually see the movie.

Well lets go at this one by one, shall we?
First off HC was great in LAAH. Fantastic job. Secondly, in SG 'all he had to do was play a liar'? Hello, its called A.C.T.I.N.G. & makes for some really great flicks. And SG is one of those, or did all the awards it was nominated for and won just completely slip the mind? He was brilliant in both of these roles. Every single review I read of SG specifically mentioned Hayden's performance.

In AOTC, he was playing a confused teenager and he played it just right. What is it with fanboys that you cant see past your own faults to say 'hey, ya know what, thats how people really act...'?

ANd just because one person hasnt heard of a book does not make it any less 'classic'. Its been around for a while, look it up. Gen Y'ers are being cast seeing as how that is the appropriate age for the parts. Or didnt you realize teh plague killed alot of folks and they didnt have very long life expectancies?

And Dino De Laurentiis has been making movies since the early 60's so my bet is that he knows a thing or two about them.

I've never in my time here claimed to share anything BUT an opinion. I figured I've spoken my mind about pretty much everything here so much that I wouldn't have to point out the distinction. Guess I do?

As for Hayden's acting cred pertaining to a Lucas script? After Shmi's death, sure, his character took on a whole new approach, but it's eeeeeeverything before that scene that gets him guff. There were so many lines where he was missing the conviction needed to make them believable. Lucas is still to blame for such a lethargic script, granted.

I don't know why either of you brought up the fact I've never heard of the play as a basis for arguement. I was just saying, if it were so important, and had such a strong following, why is it just now enjoying a revival? Not to sound pretentious, but I don't see either of you as fans of old Italian literary works. I may be wrong.

George Lucas is a greedy old man, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with what he's worth and what he pays the actors, it's the simple fact that NO actor these days will pass up an opportunity to star in a "Star Wars" film. No matter how piss-poor the films may be, they know it's money in the bank with his riduclous licensing and marketing contracts, ticket sales, etc. It's all because of the namesake that "Star Wars" still does well today. Again, regardless of the actual quality of the film. That's almost obsolete, which is sad.

Having said that, while G.L. conjured up a space drama, ripping off a countless number of movies in the process, although I still love it, he also gave us ROTJ, Howard the Duck, etc. Point is, he hasn't had ANYTHING noteworthy in the past TWO DECADES. It's fine and well he had 2 or 3 movies in the past, but this is now, and he's totally lost his touch, and accounting for past endeavours isn't going to help him, nor his totally tarnished reputation NOW.

For the record, I didn't say a single word about "Decameron". Only questioned putting a actor with questionable ability, who's been in lukewarmly recieved films in a lead role of a cinematic adaptation what is supposedly an important piece of literature.

Don't let your crush cloud your judgment, here. Opinions are fine, but it's the GENERAL opinion which is overwhelmingly not in his favor.

Don't shoot the messenger.

How exactly is Life as a House a lukewarmly perceived film? roll eyes (sarcastic)
Maybe you thought this because the movie wasn't only about Sam, but more importantly his father, it takes skill to play a supporting role as well as he did, and to remain a supporting role instead of overshadowing what's important.

And I'd like to see a few of the sources of this general opinion, since all I've heard is good things about Hayden's acting, I mean we're not talking about Orlando Bloom here are we.

In my opinion, yes I said opinion, the only people who object to Hayden's acting are downright homophobic males, who won't give credit where credit is due just because he's good looking. Yes, that is why alot of people go see some of his movies, but that isn't necessarily why he has such a large fan base now is it?

And if anything about the whole George Lucas thing, I have more respect for Lucas than I have for Spielberg so either way I support the new star wars thumb up

"Shattered Glass" and it's awards? Let's take a look. Remember that Peter Sarsgaard guy that EVERYONE seems to overlook, probably because he isn't as attractive?

Boston Society of Film Critics Awards
Best Supporting Actor
Peter Sarsgaard

Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards
Best Supporting Actor
Peter Sarsgaard

National Society of Film Critics Awards, USA
Best Supporting Actor
Peter Sarsgaard

Online Film Critics Society Awards
Best Supporting Actor
Peter Sarsgaard

San Francisco Film Critics Circle
Best Supporting Actor
Peter Sarsgaard

Toronto Film Critics Association Awards
Best Supporting Performance, Male
Peter Sarsgaard

...seeing a pattern here? Add a Golden Globe Nomination, and to Hayden's credit, a nomination for a Golden Satellite Award (wtf..?) and there you have it.

That's rich. I'm not one of those fan boys. I'm a Star Wars fan that is actually critical of how the new trilogy is executed, and so far, it's been shit. Poor scripts, limp acting, I mean..I could go on? Hayden's a decent actor, but his roles have gotten progressively worse, of the 1 major, and 2 independent films he's done. Like I said, George Lucas' schoolkid scripts really don't allow for much range.

Again, what is it with this "classic" arguement and my knowledge of it? I didn't say that it was any less classic, but it sure as hell isn't as popular as some of you are presenting it to be, obviously. I'm also aware of the black plague and his effects, yadda, yadda, yadda, I learned that all 11 years ago in 9th grade. Point is, taking a television actor and a unproven young actor to fill supposedly coveted roles seems risky, as does the movies plot, suppoedly geared towards kids who could probably care less. It's almost apparent they are banking on thei sex appeal more than anything.

This subject matter may be more fitting for him, an old school Italian, but his track record as of late doesn't speak to well for past greatness. Just like Lucas. Lately, he's been less than impressive, but I don't know much about the man himself and his expertise.

I didn't specify "Life As a House", it lumped it in with the others to make a point. It was a great movie, Hayden and Kevin Kline's best ever, but it wasn't as appreciated as you'd think. Even "Shattered Glass" got more recognition, which is poor. As for the negative Hayden fan-fare, I think it's rather abundant.

So, guys that don't like Hayden Christensen have to be homophobic, and they can't just think that he's a poor actor?!? This is quote material if I ever saw any. laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud

Hayden Christensen as Anakin wasn't reason people flocked to see all ONE of his widely released movies, no, so that's not exactly a viable example, since it's a Star Wars movies. Regular movie goers won't go rent "Shattered Glass" for Hayden, would they? Not unless they have a thing for geeks. "Life as A House"? Maybe, because he wears eyeliner, and has a shower scene. Star Wars, obviously, because it's Star Wars and he's just a pawn, one which Lucas is licking his chops over.

I've got more respect for Steven than Lucas for a few reasons. Those mainly rooting in the fact Spielberg never sold out, he actually appreciates his fans, and not their money.

You have a gap in your culture.
I studied it in high school as well as at university.
A number of the stories contained within The Decameron appear in Chaucer' s Canterbury Tales.

lil bitchiness
Then you might want to look into not putting your opinion as a fact. In what way is this an opinion -

YOU are not likely to see the movie, and because YOU arent going to see it, it doesnt neccesseraly mean NOONE will. Maybe get that right first.

This has nothing to do with my crush or my judgment. I do not make judgments on something I am unfamiliar about - see the movie, then critisize it, maybe?

The fact that I am looking foward to this, has to do with the piece of literature which is excellent and very well known.

I take it we're forgetting the Jurassic Park series? He may not have been the director after the second, but he definately still had alot of influence in that one. Number 4 should be coming out in about a year. Not to mention the new Indiana Jones he's set to direct. That's not cashing in at all then? thumb up

The fact remains that what source do you have that actually specifies he's a poor actor? I mean famous critics wise, any at all?
So far in this thread alone it's just been you and one other.

I think it takes great skill to pull off the roles he plays, and he does do it well. After all let's agree on one thing he is attractive, but he doesn't exploit that fact, he could have been in so many more movies no doubt, as simple eye candy, but he picks his roles carefully, and has depth in his acting, unlike so many other talentless hacks out there.

One for example would be Mischa Barton, the only reason she plays an anorexic alcoholic so well on The OC is probably because she is one in real life roll eyes (sarcastic)

Negative Hayden fan are? I think not:
Critics reviews of HC in SG:

Hayden Christensen, who makes Glass' career believable by being utterly plausible himself - Rodge Ebert

Hayden Christensen is sensational as Glass - Rolling Stone

"Christensen is terrific as the deceptively boyish Glass - Gary Thompson, PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS

Hayden Christensen strikes all the right notes as the talented, charming and very cloying Stephen Glass - Richard Roeper

Christensen immerses himself completely and chillingly into the skin of Glass-- Jan Stuart, NEWSDAY

ANd SG is a movie people rent / rented. And I'll take a geek over an a$$hole anyday, thanks.

Eyeliner & a shower scene? Oh give me a friggin break. I wish I were that shallow.

Speilberg never sold out? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! The dude INVENTED the popcorn movie for chrissakes! Schindler's List & Private Ryan & The Color Purple are among my faves and are great movies but they are the exception rather than the rule of this guys career. At least GL had the balls to quit the DGA, WGA, & every other association when they tried to mes with him.

Anyway, the point of this thread is Decameron. Which I ampersonally looking forward to. You dont like it? Great, free country & all. But let us discuss the topic rather than your inane ramblings.

We study it in English and World History thumb up
Very controversial for it's age, it should be wonderful to see what they do with it on the big screen this time around big grin

What, of the point I was making that what I say shouldn't be percieved as fact, but opinion, didn't I get across? Again, I figured I've been around ehre long enough for people to know that I don't speak out of anything BUT opinion.

As for who sees the movie, I never commented on who would or would not see it. Don't know where you're coming from, much less going, with that. The reasoning behind seeing it, I did question, and IMO, rightfully so. In addition, I have yet to criticize the movie itself, just the casting directors decisions. Guess we'll (you'll, everyone but myself) will see how that pans out.

I need sources? Do a Google search, I dunno. Every single Episode 2 review from anyone that's anyone will share the same opinion that his performance was sub-par, although not entirely his fault. Over at Rebelscum, he was layed into daily by someone. I mean, I'm having a hard time in trying to understand how anyone can gauge his overall performance in 1 major movie and a couple of indies, all of which were supporting roles in some part.

I for one refuse to agree on his physical appeal, because it makes no difference. He doesn't exploit his good looks? You ever pick up Vanity Fair, Teen People, Seventeen, etc around the time of the release of Episode 2? My god, you couldn't be furthur from the truth. As for this misconception that he "picks" roles? He took a job from a hack director because of a namesake and guaranteed stardom. I'm not so sure that he's even been OFFERED roles to sleect from, personally, and it seems as if he'll take whatever he'll get in his young career. Let's not overhype him so early.

Where are the reviews for AOTC? confused

Balls? You mean when they wanted a piece of his pie, when he subsequently became delusional and made "Howard the Duck"?
Spielberg is a hit maker. SPR, Jaws, Duel, Minority Report, The Color Purple, Band of Brothers, E.T., Poltergeist, Gremlins, Empire of the Sun, Roger Rabbit, Amistad, Jurassic Park, Indy...I could go on???

..and by inane ramblings, I'll take it to mean making points and calling a spade a spade, ruining the days of some fangirls? Hey, discuss away.


The Homophobic Hayden Hating Ass-hole

Well, finally, a bit of truth.... laughing

lil bitchiness

That's for one is right, because he hasn't been in that many films I don't think anyone has the right to criticize his acting over all, not even you. How can you call him a bad actor if he has only been in 1 major film and a few indies? And said indies got rave reviews.

He doesn't exploit his good looks, he poses for magazines, true, name one star who doesn't specially when they all want him because of the fact he's so good looking and talented in their opinions, otherwise they wouldn't feature him in thigs such as the best stars under 25 and etc.

I'm sure he's been offered plenty, he is quite wanted nowadays.


Hayden is a great actor, yes he may have been winy in Star Wars but that's how the character was written. He did awesome in his previous films as said from the actors he was working with. His character of Steven Glass was so precise that the actual people who knew the real Steven Glass said he was so much like him it was scary. He's a great actor and I don't think that he's been able to show how good he is in Star Wars, I think that we will be seeing even better performances from him as he continues his career.

I think this film will prove christensen that he can act better than his role of anakin skywalker. I think this will actually turn out really good.

Hayden is a mediocre actor who has far more fame then he deserves. People act as if it's because of his acting that he's so famous, when it's because he's attractive and because he was in the new star wars films. His acting is often flaccid, not unlike an impotent penis, and he often sounds like he's reading dialogue off of a damn Q-card or something.

Also, the statement of "everyone who dislikes hayden is homophobic" is one of the most blatantly idiotic and generalized (falsely) statements I've ever heard in my life. Spoken like a true fan-girl.

hayden lacks subtlety. Every movie he stars in, he always over elaborates on the emotion in his execution. like backfire said, he is nothing more than a run of the mill actor who fell into a role of a lifetime. Much like orlando bloom.

yes, i'm with the last two of the main reasons if not the only reason this started is because hayden is in the movie, before he hit it mainstream with AOTC, and ROTS i don't remember any praises of hayden form the general society or threads, sigs, pics, and so forth, if your even remotely attractive, and hit it famous than all the girls want to suck your balls and you end up People's Sexiest Man...Ala Ben Affleck

Although this thread is supposed to be about Decameron, it has turned into a discussion about Hayden Christensen and his talent. I first saw him on a show called "Higher Ground" that I absolutely loved, but it was cancelled (it actually still has a large following though-including a petition to bring it to dvd) Anyway...the point is that Hayden Christensen has been known since around 1999 and his acting is better than you may think. As well, as all young actors/actresses do pretty much cash in on publicity, etc., he has veered away from that. Did you hear that he might be leaving show business to become an architect? He is really humble about his acting and talent, and although you may think he is mediocre, he did have a fairly large following before the Star Wars movies came out. I do agree that the acting didn't seem the best in AOTC, but as it has been said, he plays the part he's given and I think he made up for it in ROTS. To say that he doesn't deserve his fame I believe is a little harsh because he proved his acting I believe in LAAH and SG, and even "Higher Ground," before doing the huge blockbuster. This movie "Decameron" will show another side of his acting, but I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised with how good of an actor he really is. Also, I agree that "whoever doesn't like Hayden is homophobic" is a quite ridiculous statement. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And there was a comment about Orlando Bloom also not earning his fame or comparison to OB, I think HC really showcased what he can do before being in a more "heartthrob role, whereas OB first started in LOTR, Troy, and POTC...putting him in blockbuster beautiful hero boy roles, not relying on his talent too much.

Teh Decameron is a great book, so I will definately gonna see it, I don't know if I am too happy aboot Christensen playing in it but we will see.

i'm only going to see this movie because of hayden, and i think it's a good enough reason

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.