Latest news with #Rollerball
San Francisco Chronicle
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- San Francisco Chronicle
AP WAS THERE: 'Jaws' and the parental debates it set off
LOS ANGELES (AP) — It didn't take long for 'Jaws' to make an impression. The movie that launched the summer blockbuster season and changed how people view sharks and the ocean 50 years ago also created a dilemma for parents: Was it a movie their children could watch? To help answer that, The Associated Press went to the film's star, Roy Scheider. Legendary AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch interviewed Scheider and others for a story that ran on July 28, 1975, roughly a month after 'Jaws' arrived in theaters. The story is included below as it ran. ___ At a sunny hotel swimming pool, a small freckle faced boy rushes up to Roy Scheider and exclaims with delight: 'I think you played really good in 'Jaws.'' 'You see,' says Scheider as the boy runs off to swim. 'Some children seem able to handle it.' Scheider, star of the smash hit film which is breaking box-office records, was reacting to a stormy issue now almost as hot as the movie itself — should children see 'Jaws'? The debate stems from the rating given to the movie — PG, meaning parental guidance suggested. Several critics and members of the movie industry have called the rating too lenient. Some use it as an example of flaws in the frequently criticized rating system. In practice, PG places no restrictions on who may see a film. Any child with the price of a movie ticket can view 'Jaws,' which climaxes with a man vomiting blood as a giant shark chews him up. Los Angeles Times critic Charles Champlin noted that the PG 'does not sufficiently warn parents that the giant shark includes children among its victims and that children are known to be particularly impressed by what happens to children on the screen.' Movie makers whose films recently were give the more restrictive 'R' rating — requiring an adult to accompany any child under 17 — have protested loudly. Some have even appealed to the rating board of the Motion Picture Association of America for a rating change. 'With some of our innocuous action pictures we've been hit with Rs,' says Paul Heller, producer of 'Enter the Dragon.' 'But here we get a picture where there's all sorts of gore and blood, where arms and legs are seen floating in the water, where a girl is seen covered by crabs on the beach, and other horrifying scenes, and it gets a PG.' Producers of the film 'Rollerball' unsuccessfully appealed their R rating after 'Jaws' was released, claiming their film's violence was far less objectionable. Universal Studios, which released 'Jaws,' has taken the unusual steps of warning in its advertisements that the film 'may be too intense for younger children.' Youngsters interviewed at a Los Angeles area beach after the movie's release expressed fears of swimming in the ocean. One 12-year-old girl confessed 'I think about it so much. I dreamed about it. It really scared me.' But Universal has no complaints about the PG rating, and, according to Rating Administration, no one may appeal a film's rating other than its producer and distributor. Scheider, who portrays the sheriff of the beach resort menaced by the killer shark, recalls that 'Jaws' was made with the intention of obtaining a PG rating. 'The picture was judiciously shot to avoid unnecessary amounts of gore,' he says, recalling that some bloody scenes were added after final footage was reviewed by the filmmakers. 'When the film was brought back to the post, the editor and director found that it was necessary to show, after an hour and a half, what the shark does. the audience demands it.' The scene of the girl covered with crabs was added later, he notes and the finale in which Robert Shaw is chewed up was embellished. 'I personally think that scene could have been modulated a bit,' says Scheider. But Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA and father of the seven-year-old rating system, defends the 'Jaws' rating. 'In the view of the rating board, 'Jaws' involved nature's violence, rather than man's violence against man,' Valenti has said. 'This is the same kind of violence as in 'Hansel and Gretel.' Children might imitate other kinds of violence, but not the kind seen in 'Jaws.'' Valenti declared that, 'If this were a man or woman committing violence as seen in 'Jaws,' it would definitely go in the R category. But it's a shark, and I don't think people will go around pretending they're a shark.' The rating controversy hasn't hurt business. Universal reports that 'Jaws' grossed an incredible $60 million in its first month and seems destined to grow richer than 'The Godfather,' the current record holder. Scheider says his own 12-year-old daughter has seen 'Jaws' twice — but only after he and his wife explained 'which things she was going to see were real and which ones were not real.' 'She was scared in many parts, but she knew it was a movie,' he says, suggesting that parents who let children see the movie explain first that 'This is going to scare you. It's going to be like a roller coaster ride.' 'Some kids understand his and some don't,' he concedes. '... I would be very careful about children under 10. If they're susceptible to nightmares, get scared easily and are impressionable, I'd say no, don't see it. If the child can handle it, fine, see it.' Scheider holds the cynical view that the rating system exists because 'most parents don't give a damn what their kids see.' But he is convinced that a child who sees 'Jaws' without guidance won't be permanently traumatized by it. 'It'll go away,' he says. 'You can live through it. Traumatic shocks in entertainment disappear. Traumatic shocks through the lack of love and ill treatment by parents and peers persist through all of life.'
Hamilton Spectator
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Hamilton Spectator
AP WAS THERE: ‘Jaws' and the parental debates it set off
LOS ANGELES (AP) — It didn't take long for 'Jaws' to make an impression. The movie that launched the summer blockbuster season and changed how people view sharks and the ocean 50 years ago also created a dilemma for parents: Was it a movie their children could watch? To help answer that, The Associated Press went to the film's star, Roy Scheider. Legendary AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch interviewed Scheider and others for a story that ran on July 28, 1975, roughly a month after 'Jaws' arrived in theaters. The story is included below as it ran. ___ At a sunny hotel swimming pool, a small freckle faced boy rushes up to Roy Scheider and exclaims with delight: 'I think you played really good in 'Jaws.'' 'You see,' says Scheider as the boy runs off to swim. 'Some children seem able to handle it.' Scheider, star of the smash hit film which is breaking box-office records, was reacting to a stormy issue now almost as hot as the movie itself — should children see 'Jaws'? The debate stems from the rating given to the movie — PG, meaning parental guidance suggested. Several critics and members of the movie industry have called the rating too lenient. Some use it as an example of flaws in the frequently criticized rating system. In practice, PG places no restrictions on who may see a film. Any child with the price of a movie ticket can view 'Jaws,' which climaxes with a man vomiting blood as a giant shark chews him up. Los Angeles Times critic Charles Champlin noted that the PG 'does not sufficiently warn parents that the giant shark includes children among its victims and that children are known to be particularly impressed by what happens to children on the screen.' Movie makers whose films recently were give the more restrictive 'R' rating — requiring an adult to accompany any child under 17 — have protested loudly. Some have even appealed to the rating board of the Motion Picture Association of America for a rating change. 'With some of our innocuous action pictures we've been hit with Rs,' says Paul Heller, producer of 'Enter the Dragon.' 'But here we get a picture where there's all sorts of gore and blood, where arms and legs are seen floating in the water, where a girl is seen covered by crabs on the beach, and other horrifying scenes, and it gets a PG.' Producers of the film 'Rollerball' unsuccessfully appealed their R rating after 'Jaws' was released, claiming their film's violence was far less objectionable. Universal Studios, which released 'Jaws,' has taken the unusual steps of warning in its advertisements that the film 'may be too intense for younger children.' Youngsters interviewed at a Los Angeles area beach after the movie's release expressed fears of swimming in the ocean. One 12-year-old girl confessed 'I think about it so much. I dreamed about it. It really scared me.' But Universal has no complaints about the PG rating, and, according to Rating Administration, no one may appeal a film's rating other than its producer and distributor. Scheider, who portrays the sheriff of the beach resort menaced by the killer shark, recalls that 'Jaws' was made with the intention of obtaining a PG rating. 'The picture was judiciously shot to avoid unnecessary amounts of gore,' he says, recalling that some bloody scenes were added after final footage was reviewed by the filmmakers. 'When the film was brought back to the post, the editor and director found that it was necessary to show, after an hour and a half, what the shark does. the audience demands it.' The scene of the girl covered with crabs was added later, he notes and the finale in which Robert Shaw is chewed up was embellished. 'I personally think that scene could have been modulated a bit,' says Scheider. But Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA and father of the seven-year-old rating system, defends the 'Jaws' rating. 'In the view of the rating board, 'Jaws' involved nature's violence, rather than man's violence against man,' Valenti has said. 'This is the same kind of violence as in 'Hansel and Gretel.' Children might imitate other kinds of violence, but not the kind seen in 'Jaws.'' Valenti declared that, 'If this were a man or woman committing violence as seen in 'Jaws,' it would definitely go in the R category. But it's a shark, and I don't think people will go around pretending they're a shark.' The rating controversy hasn't hurt business. Universal reports that 'Jaws' grossed an incredible $60 million in its first month and seems destined to grow richer than 'The Godfather,' the current record holder. Scheider says his own 12-year-old daughter has seen 'Jaws' twice — but only after he and his wife explained 'which things she was going to see were real and which ones were not real.' 'She was scared in many parts, but she knew it was a movie,' he says, suggesting that parents who let children see the movie explain first that 'This is going to scare you. It's going to be like a roller coaster ride.' 'Some kids understand his and some don't,' he concedes. '... I would be very careful about children under 10. If they're susceptible to nightmares, get scared easily and are impressionable, I'd say no, don't see it. If the child can handle it, fine, see it.' Scheider holds the cynical view that the rating system exists because 'most parents don't give a damn what their kids see.' But he is convinced that a child who sees 'Jaws' without guidance won't be permanently traumatized by it. 'It'll go away,' he says. 'You can live through it. Traumatic shocks in entertainment disappear. Traumatic shocks through the lack of love and ill treatment by parents and peers persist through all of life.'
Winnipeg Free Press
20-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Winnipeg Free Press
AP WAS THERE: ‘Jaws' and the parental debates it set off
LOS ANGELES (AP) — It didn't take long for 'Jaws' to make an impression. The movie that launched the summer blockbuster season and changed how people view sharks and the ocean 50 years ago also created a dilemma for parents: Was it a movie their children could watch? To help answer that, The Associated Press went to the film's star, Roy Scheider. Legendary AP Special Correspondent Linda Deutsch interviewed Scheider and others for a story that ran on July 28, 1975, roughly a month after 'Jaws' arrived in theaters. The story is included below as it ran. ___ At a sunny hotel swimming pool, a small freckle faced boy rushes up to Roy Scheider and exclaims with delight: 'I think you played really good in 'Jaws.'' 'You see,' says Scheider as the boy runs off to swim. 'Some children seem able to handle it.' Scheider, star of the smash hit film which is breaking box-office records, was reacting to a stormy issue now almost as hot as the movie itself — should children see 'Jaws'? The debate stems from the rating given to the movie — PG, meaning parental guidance suggested. Several critics and members of the movie industry have called the rating too lenient. Some use it as an example of flaws in the frequently criticized rating system. In practice, PG places no restrictions on who may see a film. Any child with the price of a movie ticket can view 'Jaws,' which climaxes with a man vomiting blood as a giant shark chews him up. Los Angeles Times critic Charles Champlin noted that the PG 'does not sufficiently warn parents that the giant shark includes children among its victims and that children are known to be particularly impressed by what happens to children on the screen.' Movie makers whose films recently were give the more restrictive 'R' rating — requiring an adult to accompany any child under 17 — have protested loudly. Some have even appealed to the rating board of the Motion Picture Association of America for a rating change. 'With some of our innocuous action pictures we've been hit with Rs,' says Paul Heller, producer of 'Enter the Dragon.' 'But here we get a picture where there's all sorts of gore and blood, where arms and legs are seen floating in the water, where a girl is seen covered by crabs on the beach, and other horrifying scenes, and it gets a PG.' Producers of the film 'Rollerball' unsuccessfully appealed their R rating after 'Jaws' was released, claiming their film's violence was far less objectionable. Universal Studios, which released 'Jaws,' has taken the unusual steps of warning in its advertisements that the film 'may be too intense for younger children.' Youngsters interviewed at a Los Angeles area beach after the movie's release expressed fears of swimming in the ocean. One 12-year-old girl confessed 'I think about it so much. I dreamed about it. It really scared me.' But Universal has no complaints about the PG rating, and, according to Rating Administration, no one may appeal a film's rating other than its producer and distributor. Scheider, who portrays the sheriff of the beach resort menaced by the killer shark, recalls that 'Jaws' was made with the intention of obtaining a PG rating. 'The picture was judiciously shot to avoid unnecessary amounts of gore,' he says, recalling that some bloody scenes were added after final footage was reviewed by the filmmakers. 'When the film was brought back to the post, the editor and director found that it was necessary to show, after an hour and a half, what the shark does. the audience demands it.' The scene of the girl covered with crabs was added later, he notes and the finale in which Robert Shaw is chewed up was embellished. 'I personally think that scene could have been modulated a bit,' says Scheider. But Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA and father of the seven-year-old rating system, defends the 'Jaws' rating. 'In the view of the rating board, 'Jaws' involved nature's violence, rather than man's violence against man,' Valenti has said. 'This is the same kind of violence as in 'Hansel and Gretel.' Children might imitate other kinds of violence, but not the kind seen in 'Jaws.'' Valenti declared that, 'If this were a man or woman committing violence as seen in 'Jaws,' it would definitely go in the R category. But it's a shark, and I don't think people will go around pretending they're a shark.' The rating controversy hasn't hurt business. Universal reports that 'Jaws' grossed an incredible $60 million in its first month and seems destined to grow richer than 'The Godfather,' the current record holder. Scheider says his own 12-year-old daughter has seen 'Jaws' twice — but only after he and his wife explained 'which things she was going to see were real and which ones were not real.' 'She was scared in many parts, but she knew it was a movie,' he says, suggesting that parents who let children see the movie explain first that 'This is going to scare you. It's going to be like a roller coaster ride.' 'Some kids understand his and some don't,' he concedes. '… I would be very careful about children under 10. If they're susceptible to nightmares, get scared easily and are impressionable, I'd say no, don't see it. If the child can handle it, fine, see it.' Scheider holds the cynical view that the rating system exists because 'most parents don't give a damn what their kids see.' But he is convinced that a child who sees 'Jaws' without guidance won't be permanently traumatized by it. 'It'll go away,' he says. 'You can live through it. Traumatic shocks in entertainment disappear. Traumatic shocks through the lack of love and ill treatment by parents and peers persist through all of life.'
Bloomberg
23-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Bloomberg
America's Allies Are Looking for the Kill Switch
This is Bloomberg Opinion Today, an increasingly unpredictable hegemon of Bloomberg Opinion's opinions. On Sundays, we look at the major themes of the week past and how they will define the week ahead. Sign up for the daily newsletter here. Kill Switch isn't the worst-rated movie in the history of Rotten Tomatoes; there are at least 100 contenders ahead of it. Nor is the worst-reviewed film centering on an evil corporate conspiracy — LL Cool J took care of that with the Rollerball sequel. It's not even the worst-rated movie in which a pilot must save the day — Nicolas Cage took care of that with Left Behind. But given Kill Switch's 9% favorable rating 1 on the Tomatometer, 2 I assumed that the credited director, Tim Smit, was simply an alternative version of the pseudonym filmmakers use to disavow their own work, Alan Smithee. But it turns out he's a real person. No hard feelings, Tim, I hope.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
The director accused of taking $55m from Netflix – and blowing it on crypto and cars
It is commonplace in Hollywood today for television series and films to be commissioned at far too large a budget for them to enjoy the success that their producers and studios will hope for. Very occasionally, someone sees the light and pulls the plug on the unfinished product before it can run up even higher bills, with no chance of return. Yet the case of the director Carl Rinsch, who has been arrested for allegedly defrauding Netflix of $11 million, is something else. With the exception of Die Hard and Predator film-maker John McTiernan, who eventually ended up being imprisoned as a result of the awful behind-the-scenes shenanigans on his dire 2002 remake of Rollerball, Hollywood directors do not generally blur the line between personal liability and artistic investment. Yet Rinsch has been indicted for taking money that was intended to fund a Netflix sci-fi television series named White Horse, and instead spending on it a wide range of luxury items. The indictment has been made public, and it makes for eye-popping reading, as well as a Gatsbyian insight into how the rich – or would-be rich – live. Rinsch is said to have spent money that he received from Netflix on 'a number of extremely risky purchases of securities, including call options on a biopharmaceutical company' (which the indictment drily notes 'were not successful'), as well as significant cryptocurrency investments. Yet he didn't stint on his own personal comforts either, apparently. The indictment lists the various purchases that he made during the time that he was employed to work on the show, and they are significant. They include nearly $2 million on credit card bills, nearly $400,000 for accommodation at the Four Seasons hotel and various rental properties, 'approximately $3,787,000 on furniture and antiques, including approximately $638,000 to purchase two mattresses and approximately $295,000 on luxury bedding and linens', millions of dollars on cars, watches and clothing, and, hilariously, over $1 million on lawyers who were hired to sue Netflix for even more money. Were Rinsch an A-list director, or even someone with proven previous success, then he might have felt justified in asking for some of these extravagant luxuries. Yet his career, to date, is an undistinguished one that inadvertently shines a light on how many streaming companies are wasting vast amounts of money in pursuit of projects that may well never come to fruition, as long as some A-list star names are attached. That Rinsch had been making up fantastical stories from a young age – claiming that his father was a spy and that he grew up in Africa, whereas in fact he was the son of an insurance executive and he came of age in San Fernando Valley in California – did not bode well for what came next. The director came to prominence in 2010 when his short film The Gift, about a KGB agent delivering a mysterious present, won the Bronze Award at the Cannes Lions awards, along with the newly-created Film Craft Lion for Special Effects. This launched Rinsch, who had been directing advertisements for Mercedes and Heineken for the prestigious Ridley Scott Associates company, into the big leagues, and he was linked to some of the highest-profile projects going, including a remake of the Seventies classic Logan's Run and an Alien prequel. When it was announced in 2009 that he would instead be entrusted by Universal with 47 Ronin, a samurai epic to star Keanu Reeves, the film industry title Variety archly noted that 'it is unusual to see a first-timer entrusted to helm a film with a large budget and tentpole aspirations.' 47 Ronin was intended to be a cross between Gladiator, 300 and The Last Samurai, harnessing the star power of Reeves, the then-popular 3D format and respected Japanese actors including the future Shogun star Hiroyuki Sanada. When Rinsch was handed a $175 million budget, The Hollywood Reporter called it 'a large-scale, downright risky' gamble. According to reports, filming did not go well, not least because Rinsch insisted on shooting scenes twice, once in Japanese and once in English. Speaking to The Wrap, those involved in the production described it as a 'nightmare', and Rinsch was removed from the film's editing process, after a series of expensive reshoots were designed to make Reeves (the only A-list star in the production) more prominent. Such was the potential for embarrassment, The Wrap reported, the final post-production process was personally overseen by Universal chief Donna Langley – even as the budget ballooned to a rumoured $225 million. It was estimated that 47 Ronin would have needed to make around $500 million at the box office just to break even; in the event, it struggled to take over $150 million, making it one of the biggest flops in Hollywood history. It even flopped in Japan, where local audiences were discomfited by the casting of Reeves and the undue prominence of a white, American star in what should have been their story. It received dire, bemused reviews, and although a straight-to-Netflix sequel, Blade of the 47 Ronin, was eventually released in 2022, Rinsch and Reeves were no longer involved. Usually, when a film-maker is deemed responsible for such an egregious flop, it spells the end of their career. There is a reason why the expression 'director jail' is commonly used in the industry, although, to date, only McTiernan has actually spent time in real jail. Rinsch returned to his previous career directing commercials, and under normal circumstances, he would not have been heard from again. Yet he had sufficiently impressed Reeves while the two were working together for the actor to contribute funds to a series of short films that Rinsch had developed with his Uruguayan fashion designer and model wife Gabriela Rosés, revolving around an AI-generated species named 'Organic Intelligent'. It was potentially visionary and far-reaching in its ideas and implications, and returned Rinsch to the sci-fi projects that he had wished to begin his career with. These self-funded shorts were filmed in Kenya, to avoid American labour laws, and Rinsch was a demanding presence on set, at one point filming for 24 hours straight. But when he had six short episodes ready, studios sat up and took notice. It helped that Rinsch's work coincided with the mid-2010s boom in streaming content, and there was competition between several of the biggest services, including Amazon Prime and Netflix, to take Rinsch's shorts and turn them into a big-budget series. Eventually Netflix prevailed, after Amazon believed they had reached an informal agreement, and, at the end of 2018, Rinsch and Rosés signed an enviable deal. For a 13-episode series of short films, totalling between 110 and 120 minutes in length, they would be commissioned to make the series with a cost of over $60 million, under the name Conquest or 'White House', complete with Reeves as an investor. It attracted a well-known cast, including British actress Harriet Walter, and would, had matters gone well, given Rinsch a second chance at an A-list career. He was given final cut, and he and Rosés were 'locked for life' into any sequels or spin-off opportunities. Lest we forget, this was also a time when short-form filmmaking was believed to be the future of streaming content; Jeffrey Katzenberg's now-defunct Quibi had just launched to great fanfare. Unfortunately, matters did not go well. Netflix, for unfathomable reasons, chose to ignore Rinsch's various eccentricities, which included his failing to have completed scripts for the remaining episodes. He instead suggested that he had thought up the entire story in his head, and he would communicate this information to the actors, crew and special effects department as and when it was required. It also did not help that Scott Stuber, who had recently joined Netflix's film department, had been one of the producers on 47 Ronin, and was therefore well placed to let the company know about the debacle that had ensued on that film. For unfathomable reasons he did not, and chaos ensued. Not a single further episode was completed, despite filming in locations that included Budapest, São Paulo and Montevideo. A well-sourced 2023 piece from the New York Times suggested that 'He claimed to have discovered Covid-19's secret transmission mechanism and to be able to predict lightning strikes.' The director had to make an outright denial that he had mental health issues, saying in an Instagram post that the Times article would 'discuss the fact that I somehow lost my mind … (Spoiler alert) … I did not.' His marriage collapsed, amidst allegations that he had punched holes in walls and had accused Rosés of hiring a hitman to kill him. And Netflix, bizarrely, kept on sending Rinsch more and more money to finish the show, eventually taking their outlay to $55 million: only $6 million less than the sum originally agreed. By the time that Rosés went to the streaming company to inform them that her soon-to-be-ex husband was doing a credible impersonation of Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse now, Netflix realised that they had wasted their money. They accordingly pulled the plug on the project, announcing that 'after a lot of time and effort, it became clear that Mr. Rinsch was never going to complete the project he agreed to make, and so we wrote the project off.' When they asked for the money to be returned, he refused to do so, claiming instead that the millions of dollars spent on cars and furniture were production expenses for the series, and that the money that he had made out of his investments ('Thank you and god bless crypto,' he was said to have remarked online after making $27 from the cryptocurrency Dogecoin) were a result of his financial acuity, rather than the company's misspent investment. This will now be for the courts to decide. Certainly, it seems unlikely that Conquest, White House or whatever it should have been called will ever see the light of day, and Netflix's investment, whether in whole or part, looks equally unlikely to be recovered. Nonetheless, Rinsch's arrest and indictment mean that this fascinating insight into what really goes on behind the scenes at some of the industry's biggest streaming companies – and how its unfettered talent behaves – will only become more compelling as time goes on. This Halle Berry sci-fi picture, announced as part of a multiple Netflix film deal with the actress in 2020, was completed in 2021, but was said to require 'significant' reshoots in order to render it releasable. After sitting on it until 2024, and apparently being confused by the idea that the child actors in the film would have aged, thus making these reshoots difficult, Netflix simply announced that The Mothership would be cancelled altogether. As a sweetener, Berry's film The Union, with Mark Wahlberg, was released by the streaming company last summer, to an indifferent reception. Warner Brothers' CEO David Zaslav is not one of the most popular men in Hollywood, and amidst the myriad reasons for this, his decision to scrap several of their pictures and write their cost off against tax was seen as a triumph of bean-counting over creativity. The highest-profile example of this was the already completed Batgirl, which would have starred Leslie Grace as the eponymous heroine alongside superhero veterans Michael Keaton and J.K Simmons and newly Oscar-winning Brendan Fraser as the baddie, to be directed by Bad Boys filmmakers Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah. Described by anonymous sources as 'a huge disappointment' and cheap-looking, the decision simply to can the film altogether was still regarded as unprecedented, and a potential indicator of worrying developments to come in the industry. Nancy Meyers, esteemed director of The Holiday and Something's Gotta Give, may well be the queen of aspirationally designed Hollywood rom-coms but her planned next foray into the genre, the Michael Fassbender-Scarlett Johansson-starring Paris Paramount, was canned after the already extravagant $130 million budget – with a considerable amount already invested in pre-production - looked as if it would rise upwards to $150 million, at Meyers' behest. While it would have been intriguing to see Hollywood's most intense leading man in a light-hearted rom-com, alas we shall never get the opportunity. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
