The biggest mistake in student films is that they are usually cast so badly, with friends and people the directors know. Actually you can cover a lot of bad direction with good acting.
In my first film, I was a basketball player. Like every good actor, I lied when they asked me if I could play.
I always go with the story and character and if those are good and if the setting is something that's scary (horror films seem to always take place at night and the weather's always bad) then I might be interested.
I find that with any good run on a show with good writers, they put something on paper, and you put something back on film, and that affects what they put on the paper the next time.
A lot of modern horror can leave me cold, and I'm not good with blood and gore and all that stuff. It's not fun for me. There's nothing entertaining about watching a film like that.
There aren't enough good roles for strong women. I wish we had more female writers. Most of the female characters you see in films today are the 'poor heartbroken girl.'
I've been trying to do films for years. So I've decided to wait until the next good part comes along and develop a record on my own in the meantime.
I don't make any distinction between a popular TV series or blockbuster film and doing Shakespeare. They're different, but as long as the material is good and the intention is honourable, it's all the same to me.
Humanizing good people is kind of boring and I don't really see the value in it... humanizing tricky characters is exhilarating, and making audience films out of indie subjects excites me.
I'd love to work in the States; I'd love to work anywhere where you get a good script and a good part to play. But I do love British film as well.
I'm also very proud to be a part of a trilogy of films that, if they do nothing else, allow people to check their problems at the door, sit down and have a good time.
My dream is to one day own a country house on the shore in England, have gotten married, wipe some debt off and get a few more good films.
With all of my films if I get one bad review and a bunch of good reviews the bad one is the only one that will stay with me, which really sucks!
My children have never watched any of my films. Charlie knows that daddy makes movies, but he says they are not good enough for him to watch.
'The Duellists' won Cannes, but Paramount didn't know how to release a film about two guys in bizarre breeches, waving swords around. I actually think it's a pretty good Western.
When you lock a movie's release date and then move it two months, it's just not good. It's good for everything but the cast, crew, and people who are creatively trying to make a film.
I'm very careful about how I portray violence in my films. I do believe that violence, especially violent video games, are not a good thing for young kids.
Just because one of your films does well at the box office, that doesn't make you a good person. It doesn't make you strong, smart, or secure, either.
In recent years, anyone in the government, certainly anyone in the FBI or the CIA, or recently, in again, Clint's film, In the Line of Fire, the main bad guy is the chief advisor to the president.
I think anybody who's famous has to deal with their fame in their own way, and I dealt with it by making a film about a kid who's looking out into the world of celebrity obsession.
I grew up with Forrest J. Ackerman's 'Famous Monsters of Filmland' along with a plethora of movie tomes and wanted to write about film with a sense of personality, passion, and humor.
