This report that Russell Crowe is keen on playing the second fiddle Watson to Robert Downey’ Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes in Guy Ritchie‘s upcoming film about the British super sleuth seems dubious for two reasons.
For one, it’s the British press and the tabloid-y UK Sun (cue grain of salt). For second, since when does Russell Crowe take supporting roles? The sad thing about Hollywood these days (or one of them we’ve been thinking about) is how now major stars will ever take anything less than a meaty, leading role every turn out to get the dollars and get the screen time.
But what about the ’70s and ’80s when A-list actors would take side roles like Jack Nicholson in “Terms Of Endearment” or even Gene Hackman in “Get Shorty”? Do actors need to be that old to dare take a supporting role that could turn out to be a winning middle eight that leaves you wanting more (say, ala half the cast in “True Romance,” this never happens anymore).
Apparently, “Russell wants the part, Guy wants Russell. All they’ve got left to do is dot the i’s and cross the t’s.” Yeah, we’ll believe it when we see it. In the meantime, more A-list actors in interesting character supporting roles, please. Meanwhile, does this mean Sacha Baron Cohen and Will Ferrell should get cracking?
Update: As we figured. This story is false. “I don’t have a Watson,” Guy Ritchie said at the world premiere of his contemporary gangster flick ‘RocknRolla.’ “Somebody just told me that I have Russell Crowe lined up but that’s news to me. I suspect that hasn’t happened and I’m still looking for my Watson.”
Like we said, never trust the British press. It’s going to get to the point soon where we’re not even going to report this shit (and truthfully the only reason we do is because everyone else does. A sad truth, about not being looked like you’re left out in the cold, but almost everyone else reports these stories verbatim and without an ounce of skepticism which is sad in its own right).
