Btw,Rex Reed says of Sturgess like this in his TWB rave review.

\”[i]Leading an exemplary cast is the versatile British [actor Jim Sturgess, who was so memorable in the violent Irish saga Fifty Dead Men Walking.[/b]
http://www.observer.com/2011/culture/goodbye-stalin

And this comment is from Joblo.com rave review.

[i]Weir’s also done a commendable job casting the film. The ensemble is led by Jim Sturgess. Those of you that only know him as a heartthrob from films like ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, and 21 will be blown away by his performance here, which is a star-making turn if I’ve ever seen one. Condemned by a phony confession tortured out of his wife by Soviet agents, his Polish Political prisoner makes for a compassionate and intriguing hero. Off of this film, I feel confident in predicting imminent stardom for Sturgess. [/i]
http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=35581

Unfortunately his indie films \”Fifty Dead Men Walking\” and \”Heartless\”(UK\’s cult director,Philip Ridley\’s new film) were little seen,but people who saw both films acclaimed him.Please see these films someday.

Sorry for the long post and for my English.

OK, Cirkusfolk, let me respond to your points one by one:

1. Peter Yates – there\’s no mention of Yates here, it\’s not a comparison made by anyone in the piece, and I certainly have never fawned over/revered him, when he was alive or now that he has died, because, like you, I\’d consider him an average director at best.

2. Polymath. Yes, we are on record as liking a director who works in different genres, and on first glance Weir might seem to fit that bill. However when you compare him to some of those I\’ve mentioned above, there seem to be more recurrent themes, motivations and tones across his films than those others display. That\’s all that was really being said there. Sorry if you found it condescending, but there wasn\’t really a massive value judgement being made, just an observation.

3. A-List. We don\’t make the list, Hollywood does, and Weir\’s not on it. In fairness, very few directors are (A list implies brand-name recognition, and someone who can get a film greenlit just by attaching his name to it, a Chris Nolan, a JJ Abrams, a James Cameron). If you think suggesting Weir is \”almost\” on this list despite an 8 year hiatus from making features is an insult, well, you\’re crackers. If anything \”almost an A lister\” overstates his current clout considerably, but at the height of his career to date I\’d maintain it was true. And again, A-list does not imply a value judgement on the quality of his films or his talent, it about how he\’s viewed by the power brokers, movers, shakers etc.

4. Grades. Firstly, they\’re not all A and B grades, as \’Cars\’ only gets a C+. However these, as opposed to the A-list designation ARE our grades and our opinions. We like Weir. We like a lot of his films a great deal. Not sure what we\’re arguing about here. I\’m sorry that Scott is higher up on the go-to list than Weir is, and Scott has certainly had more clunkers than Weir (he is a bit more prolific), but I don\’t think you can really hold us responsible for stuff, you know, not being fair in the world.

5. Intellectual compulsion. Here you have me baffled. Not sure why this is an \”insult whichever way you cut it\” as it wasn\’t intended as one: if anything it gives short shrift to idea of a director who does genre hop as an intellectual exercise (like there\’s a list of genres somewhere he\’s ticking off) rather than following the stories or characters that inspire him into whatever genre they happen to lead. However if it\’s the not \”kicking against his limitations\” thing that has you mad, well, that I stand by. I don\’t think he\’s that formally experimental a director, but it\’s possible we simply don\’t agree on that. Again, this is not saying he\’s in any way \’bad\’ or untalented, and in fact, as stated elsewhere I think one of his strengths is in picking stories that inspire him and not obscuring them with quirks or generic gimmickry.

6. genre hopper/Danny boyle/speculation. Again, if you feel that someone swapping genres out of intellectual compulsion sounds like an unreservedly brilliant thing and therefore I\’m dissing Weir for not doing it, well it isn\’t and I\’m not. Yes, Danny Boyle would certainly fit there, and we\’ll save the arguments over Soderbergh, Winterbottom and Lee being \’lacklustre\’ for another day. And yes, we like a genre hopper, and we also like Weir, though not for necessarily the same reasons.

The intro was not an unqualified rave about everything Weir does, because frankly I consider it much more \”respectful\” to use your word, to give an honest, if nuanced and complex, opinion on his overall canon, rather than 400 words of a hagiography. To have taken an \”everything he does is amazing\” route just because we\’re doing a retrospective of his work would have been to be guilty of the same kind of tokenism and dishonesty you deplore re Yates.

But of course you are well within your rights to remain appalled at my snobbery and elitism if you so wish.

Huge Peter Weir fan — wish he was more prolific.

I\’m sorry but the sentence: \”you get the impression that Weir only crosses genres because he is following his particular thematic preoccupations (fish-out-of-water scenarios, man vs. nature struggles, etc.) where they lead, rather than because of some kind of intellectual compulsion to kick against his limitations through experimentation\” is an insult anyway you cut it. You state you appreciate a genre-hopper ( I would have used Danny Boyle as an example instead of the lackluster names you cited), and then go on to speculate what you believe the only reason Weir could have to \”almost\” cross genres, adding that it can\’t be because he\’s intellectually compelled to challege himself. Whatever.