Discuss: Can Taylor Kitsch's 2012 Be Saved By 'Savages?'

Features
by Oliver Lyttelton
July 3, 2012 10:03 AM
22 Comments
  • |

From a brand perspective, actor Taylor Kitsch has had an unfortunate 2012. With the movie industry dealing with a rocky past few years, Hollywood has had to adjust its strategy, moving to a familiar but relatively new spending plan. With A-list stars demanding huge salaries or major backend deals with little assurance that their popularity will translate into box-office gold, Tinseltown has looked inward, almost akin to the old studio system, in an attempt to cultivate its own fresh (less-expensive) would-be stars.

Cue: the 31-year-old Taylor Kitsch, thus far known to the populace as a hunky and brooding footballer on "Friday Night Lights." One of many young actors groomed to evolve into the mantle of A-list star (along with folks like Tom Hardy, Nicholas Hoult, etc.), Kitsch has found himself in the unenviable position of leading untested tentpoles and would-be franchises as what amounts to essentially being an unknown. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and everyone needs to start somewhere, but the studios' essentially collective bet on the actor has yet to pay off (to say the least).

While this isn't Kitsch's fault, the fact remains that he has led two films that are likely neck and neck in achieving the dubious distinction of being 2012's biggest bombs. Kitsch has essentially had his Ryan Reynolds year (minus a divorce, but plus an extra, much more expensive turkey). Both Disney's "John Carter," and Universal's "Battleship" have been costly productions (upwards of $250 million), and while both pictures have grossed figures at least 35% higher, once you do the Hollywood math, both pictures are deeply in the red (earlier this year Disney reported taking a $200 million dollar bath on "John Carter" despite grossing $350 million worldwide).

It's a pretty brutal start for a young actor whose previous big-screen experience consists mostly of a supporting role in "Snakes On A Plane" and a cameo in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Reynolds at least had a string of leading roles behind him before last year's "Green Lantern" and "The Change Up" flopped, but Kitsch is now 0/2 on the public referendum on his stardom, and needs something to pull him out of that nosedive if his career isn't to be filed with the much-hyped-back-in-the-day likes of Skeet Ulrich and Gretchen Mol.

He must certainly hope that that something comes in the form of this week's "Savages," a crime thriller helmed by Oliver Stone, which Kitsch toplines alongside Aaron Johnson and Blake Lively. It's undoubtedly a different beast than "John Carter" and "Battleship" -- an ensemble, non-tentpole picture that doesn't have the same expectations or budget attached to it. But nevertheless, it's going to be Kitsch's last 2012 attempt to save face, with perception often being the more important factor over reality. It's not that it needs to be a monster hit. Opening against "The Amazing Spider-Man" means that it's not expected to bring bank, but if it can manage some legs -- it is, after all, one of the few films of the summer targeted to a slightly older audience -- it'll be perceived as something of a sleeper. And while that would be far from proof that Kitsch can be a megastar, given the ensemble nature of the film, it'd put him at least partly in the right direction.

Perhaps more important would be critical reaction. Both his films so far this year picked up predominately negative reviews, and again, while few targeted Kitsch as much as the filmmakers -- he was reasonably charismatic, if miscast, in both -- something with more positive word would help the perception that he's simply been unlucky, rather than a kind of cinematic albatross. Reviews out there already for "Savages" have been decent, if not raves, with both trades describing it as a return to form for Stone, and praise for Kitsch's turn has been floating around. Playlist team members saw the film last night and...may disagree with some of this. But in the era of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, it's the consensus that's really more important as far as the star's concerned.
You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

22 Comments

  • Nate | July 19, 2012 1:10 AMReply

    Taylor Kitsch is Canadian.

  • Vince | July 9, 2012 4:25 PMReply

    ALY stop trying to act like you know what you are talking about.. All leading men need a good personality and charisma..? is this leading men who can't act and have no depth and their characters are cardboard. I'm pretty sure directors do not want some who acts like them selves off the screen over somebody who can actually act. Say what you will about Tatum the guy has become a star! Now that he is getting into he comedic side his possibilities are end less and for him playing the same role in every movie it's kind of weird he is the only young star that can clean 100 million every movie. Taylor Kitsch was great in FNL but no, not a movie star and never will be percieved by one because he plays the same character on-screen and off. Ps. his performance in savages as chon was a joke he is suppose to be feared and you almost laugh when he stabs travolta.

  • Xas | July 11, 2012 1:11 AM

    Hats off, Vince!! Say what you want of Tatum, but the guy is charismatic and good comedian. Also he's interesting in interviews. Taylor Kitsch, on the other hand, wooden acting, zero charisma, boring in interviews... even he sound like a prick -Rejected Catching Fire in that way as he's the biggest star-

    Also, I'm so tired of people defending him for FNL. FNL was one of the best shows, but Tim Riggins isn't exactly a difficult or even demanding role. Every average actor could pull off with a good direction. Even they make one of the most bimbo actresses compelling -Minka Kelly-. If you want a good young actor - Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet, David Kross... Not only good looking actors -Actually Hammer is gorgeous- and talented enough

  • tash | July 6, 2012 1:12 AMReply

    Aside from his pretty face and abs, Taylor has the work ethic, determination and natural talent to pull through. JC was a decent film, the CEO of Disney quit because it was marketed so badly and Battleship only under performed in the US on opening weekend because of the Avengers. Both releases were hammered by the media but not because of Taylor's performance, even though he's been the common denominator, he's never slated for his performance. There's a reason why director's like Oliver Stone are backing him.

  • Anna | July 11, 2012 1:01 AM

    Maybe he has work ethic, but sorry, he's NOT leading man material... Stop making excuses. He's talented as a block of wood and even when I think he's hot, I prefer watch him in A&F than movies.

    There's a reason why director's like Oliver Stone are backing him

    Oh, come on, like Oliver Stone means quality in these days. Since Nixon, Stone hasn't a good film in YEARS. Even put in his films terrible actors -Thandie Newton in W. is a perfect example

  • JD | July 5, 2012 12:32 PMReply

    @Aly, yeah I agree, it takes a force of character to navigate through to the right roles, right now Kitsch and Reynolds are the type of guys who are considered sex symbols but lack pretty much everything outside of that. As for Tatum he maybe on a charmed run at the moment but he can't play versions of himself forever (a la Step Up & Magic Mike). At best Kitsch could hope to find a role like the one he had on FNL and run with it

  • sp | July 5, 2012 11:49 AMReply

    Kitsch has potential, just like Matthew Mcconaughey. He was so good on "Friday Night Lights."

  • v | July 4, 2012 3:47 PMReply

    First of all, no one is going to see “Savages” the same day “Spider-Man” comes out, especially with how well it’s being received by fans. Secondly, Channing Tatum – while he may not be that versatile – is still a good performer. And, he has a very likable personality and is viewed as a humble man. Kitsch is flat-out a bore to listen to in interviews. He hardly smiles, cracks a joke. He has zero APPEAL. Channing has it all.

  • Lou | July 4, 2012 3:20 PMReply

    It should be borne in mind that what is poison to some is food to others. I happen to find Reynolds a very talented and versatile actor. He was great in Buried. If I am not wrong, The Proposal made 320M USD, which was Sandra Bullock's highest grossing comedy. Definitely, Maybe is, in my view, one of the best romantic comedies of the decade. The Change-up was a bit over-the-top as raunchy comedy, but it was very well acted, as even the detractors of the movie had to admit. As far as Safe House is concerned, some European critics (e.g. Cinema Teaser) praised his performance OVER Denzel Washington's. But you are right. Looks and hot body irritate some male spectators, who are more inclined to accept more 'normal-looking' leads. Can we please use a synonym for 'charisma' (and, possibly, for 'gravitas')?

  • Aly | July 4, 2012 12:57 PMReply

    To be a leading actor, you should have something beyond looks and hot body. You need to have charisma and personality. People should be drawn to you regardless of the character you’re playing. Taylor Kitsch and Ryan Reynolds both suffer from the same problem: actors who look like leading men but lack the personality to be leading men.

  • Sasha | July 4, 2012 12:06 PMReply

    He has not been received well for his turn in Savages. Aside from a few reviews he, along with Lively, have been panned by most critics as blank and uninteresting.

    If Savages is going to be good to anyone, it's going to be Stone.

  • lenij | July 4, 2012 4:55 AMReply

    Please, just fire your agent.

  • Lou | July 3, 2012 5:53 PMReply

    When a film fails to make much money the leading man is the culprit/scape goat? Jude Law and Colin Farrell are character actors/second fiddles while Channing Tatum is a full fledged leading man, a paragon? What a paean!

  • Nolan | July 3, 2012 12:30 PMReply

    Savages might end up being reasonably well received, but I don't see any way it makes money. It looks like a generic drug action/drama. Oliver Stone's name carries absolutely zero box-office clout. The film itself doesn't have any real star power.

  • Amelia | July 3, 2012 12:23 PMReply

    With decent material, Colin Farrell is a superb leading man. Or don't you realize that he was the leading man in In Bruges, Tigerland, Phone Booth, among others? He's choice of projects have, however, not always been great, and some esteemed directors have let him down. If Kitsch has the talent (I've never seen him act), I hope he has better luck.

  • Iris | July 3, 2012 11:34 AMReply

    Tatum and Kitsch are not good actors.

  • Ryan Sartor | July 3, 2012 11:06 AMReply

    Also, I think the reception of Savages has been downplayed slightly. It's 100% on rotten tomatoes (though that will almost certainly drop as reviews pile in) and two of the three reviews on Metacritic are 80s, which I think falls under rave status (though Pete Hammond obviously doesn't count).

  • Yeah, However | July 3, 2012 11:40 AM

    Give it a second. All the reviews haven't hit yet. It's a certifiably piece of shit.

  • Ryan Sartor | July 3, 2012 10:58 AMReply

    Very good piece. I like the Tatum model. As much as I like Tatum, I think Kitsch could exceed him in terms of consistently compelling performances. That's just based on his "Friday Night Lights" work.

  • easy company | July 3, 2012 10:43 AMReply

    also he is 31

  • Mr. Sweet | July 3, 2012 10:29 AMReply

    Just a minor nitpick... Kitsch is Canadian.
    Good piece.

  • Creamer | July 3, 2012 10:29 AMReply

    Actually, he's Canadian.

Email Updates