EXCLUSIVE: What a nice dilemma to have. Just last week, Deadline reported that Rachel Weisz was in talks with Walt Disney Studios for Oz: The Great And Powerful, to be directed by Sam Raimi. But now I’ve learned that Rachel is in even deeper talks to star opposite Jeremy Renner in Universal Pictures’ latest in the Bourne franchise. I hope she can do both pics, but she may not be able to: the Tony Gilroy-directed The Bourne Legacy starts shooting in September, and Oz is planned to go into production this summer. In the Bourne spinoff, two-time Oscar nominee Renner (The Hurt Locker, The Town) will play a new character: an operative from a covert government program that is even more dangerous than the Treadstone brainwashing program that hatched Bourne. Renner is not a kid, and Weisz would be a compatible co-star. In Oz, she would join James Franco and Mila Kunis and play Evanora, the meaner older witch sister of Theodora (Kunis). Weisz is repped by CAA and Brillstein Entertainment Partners.
Rachel Weisz In Deep Talks For Bourne Gal
29 Comments
What's Hot on Deadline
-
1
'Lost In Space' Remake Picked Up To Series By Netflix
Latest Film News
-
Zane Holtz Comes Aboard ‘Hunter Killer’; Marcus Vanco Joins ‘Day Of The Dead’ Remake
-
‘The Hurt Business’ Trailer: The Art And Brutal Cost Of Mixed Martial Arts
-
Salman Khan’s ‘Sultan’ Pins Top 2016 Bollywood Opening Day – Intl Box Office
-
Kiefer Sutherland Crossing Over To ‘Flatliners’ Redo
-
Amblin Lands Pete Bridges Alien Invasion Spec ‘The Fall’
-
John McMartin Dies: Broadway Veteran Of ‘Follies’ & ‘Sweet Charity’ Fame Was 86
-
1
I’ve always wanted her to play a Bond girl. Her time has probably passed for that, but Bourne would be the next best thing.
I don’t think her time has passed… I think she’d be a wonderful Bond girl opposite Daniel Craig. She’s absolutely gorgeous, and more importantly, she’s an intelligent woman and a wonderful actress.
I think Weisz is fantastic in the right film, but man, pairing her with Jeremy Renner offers a pretty icy, brooding tandem. Not a lot of sexy energy.
Seems like with Renner, you’d want to match him with a gal who’s a bit more upbeat, brings a bit more energy to the screen.
Again, not a knock of Ms. Weisz. She’s great. But just a certain type of restrained actress.
My two cents. No idea what the script calls for so who knows.
It is a knock and a bad and ill informed one at that. Rachel Weisz not only has the energy and sex appeal but has it to the point of possible blowing Renner off the screen. Rachel’s range and versatility is almost second to none. If you need more proof, watch “The Whistleblower” ( Semi decent film made great by Rachel’s supercharged performance) and tons of other films she has been to see where you are wrong. Restrained actress? You have no clue on what you are talking about.
I hope Rachel is able to do both Oz and this film because so far, she will be the only selling point for me to see them.
@ simon
I agree. It’s looks like he not even watched her in ‘The Constant Gardner’. She was everything else in it but not “restrained”.
Paul’s right, some of you may love her in anything she’s in because you’re fans of her work, but she doesn’t seem right for a pairing with Renner. He needs someone physically more delicate and emotionally more vulnerable.
Renner needs a real actor to work with and Weisz fits the bill perfectly.
nicely put…
Excellent news, hot projects and a very talented lady.
I can’t understand why Matt Damon didn’t stay with the Bourne franchise. He’s basically the same age as Jeremy Renner. Even though Jeremy Renner is an amazing actor two-time Oscar nominee (worried about Steve McQueen Biopic, seriously, leave these things to Daniel Day Lewis, leonardo dicaprio, Joaquin Phoenix and James Franco).
It will be interesting to see, if she can do both or picks Bourne over Oz.
Who doesn’t what to go to Oz with James Franco (one-time Oscar nominee and should really be at least four i.e. James Dean, Howl and Milk)?
I actually think she’s got a stronger chance of getting an Oscar worthy performance with Oz than Bourne but wow decisions decisions….
Damon didn’t leave the series. He has always said he would do another one if Greengrass directed and there was a good script. After the last one there wasn’t a lot of places to go with Bourne, he got his memory back which was basically the point of the trilogy. Damon didnt want to do another one just to do it, he wanted to wait til there was something good and apparently there wasnt right now.
Damon had previously said that he wouldn’t do a Bourne if Paul Greengrass wasn’t involved in it. Greengrass isn’t involved in this one; Damon honored his stated position.
As a James Bond fan from the beginning…I was really concerned about the reboot with Daniel Craig. Casino Royale was a delight, and the sequel was okay.
Matt Damon, Paul Greengrass and Chris Rouse along with that production team set the bar really high for the Bourne franchise.
I hope this new team can keep my Bourne flame burning…and, wish them well.
Fantastic in the right movie? Not a lot of sextual energy? Do you even know what sextual energy is ? Rachel Weisz has been fantastic in almost every film she has been in and is considered one of the actresses working today. Sextual Energy? Rachel has that in spades.
No, I don’t know what sextual energy is – and before the accusation of being overly predantic – it’s in there twice and doesn’t seem like a typo.
And quite right, Rachel really is “considered one of the actresses working today.”
@ Sir Charles Phantom the notorious Lytton
What is “predantic”? Seems to me if you are going to criticize folks for their spelling simply because their view differs from yours, you should run a spell check on your post before you do.
The word is “pedantic”.
It’s the number of times you manage to say ‘Sextual Energy” that makes it so goood
She’s got sexual energy, certainly, and I can think of a dozen actors she would probably have amazing sexual chemistry with, but Jeremy Renner simply isn’t one of them. Don’t get me wrong, he is very sexy; it just isn’t a match. Which doesn’t take anything away from either of them as far as their appeal.
i saw Rachel in THE CONSTANT GARDENER and can confirm that she had almost as much sexual energy as the plants in the garden.
If you though Rachel had as much sexual energy as a plant in that movie, you’re gay.
I don’t think sexting translates to film very well.
Love her for any role, but still don’t buy this whole Renner thing. I know that’s what Hollywood is selling, but I’m gonna say the public ain’t gonna be buying.
Rachel is incredibly gorgeous. I love her. She’s really beautiful and a really sweet girl.
Premises like this crack me up — ooh, the government has super top secret programs where they train superhuman deadly spies? Wait, they have a top TOP secret program where they train super SUPER DUPERHUMAN deadly spies?
Whatever. Our government can’t even train people to speak Arabic.
She’s definitely sextual.
Um, maybe she can realize she is not Jason Bourne? Then she can fit into his story, it is Jason’s story and Renner also fits into it and does not take it over. All they are doing is giving Jason a shoe to fit in the next real bourne show, they are not wearing the shoe, they are picking it and getting it all wrapped and gifted for jason to wear.
If however Damon decides not to do another Bourne show then Renner or this lady can take the shoe they gift this installment and wear it in the next Bourne Show. Bourne movies are all about Bourne meeting people who have ability to get things done decisively. These people Jason meet are alreay in a groove and are capable of defeating Jason, but he wins by charisma or plain luck or his skill. Renner and this lady create a shoe for jason in a environment of red tape and military ability/execution. There’s two ways this can be done, one is to go unnoticed, two is to use high tech like mission impossible, but just marching in to these places is impossible.
Think of this movie like marching into city hall and crafting a story for a person who doesn’t even know you are what you might be doing in city hall, and city hall doesn’t know you either. That’s going to be tough, but it’s not if you realize they are using Bournes methods so it’s still a bourne movie, it’s just bourne methods with people who are not bourne.
Wasn’t Constant Gardner was like 8 years ago? Maybe she was sexy back then, but not anymore. Unfortunately we have not seen her do anything great since and being in a bad reboot of a formerly fantastic franchise spells B actress to me. I guess that what’s available to women over 40 these days.
“Wasn’t Constant Gardner was like 8 years ago?”
and your point is?
Maybe she was sexy back then”
She’s still sexy now, she’s better looking than most of the young actresses out there.
“but not anymore.”
and we should care about your opinionn because….?
“Unfortunately we have not seen her do anything great since”
Its not our falt you’re idea of a great film is “Transformers”. As for Rachel being in great film, check out “Agora” and “The Brothers Bloom”, both great films.
“being in a bad reboot of a formerly fantastic franchise spells B actress to me.”
Bad reboot? B Actress? Do you even have a clue on what you are talking about? I doubt you do.
“I guess that what’s available to women over 40 these days.”
Let’s see, a great part in the movie “OZ” and a lead role in a Bourne film. Wow, talking about table scraps.
God help us all.
Well beckie, if you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the bourne films are not B films and Rachel Weisz has done great films since Gardner. Maybe if you did not make a fool out of yourself, you would have notice.
P.s Rachel is sexy as hell.