NationStates Jolt Archive

Tyler Perry. How the hell does this happen? His latest movie, "Madea Goes to Jail" is his highest grossing film ever. I think I vomited a little in my mouth. :(

So, whose film career continues to perplex you?

Vince Vaughan.
Surely there's only so many movies that can be made using the exact same character as the one from Dodgeball.

Same goes for Adam Sandler. "I get angry easily and start yelling! It's really funny!". ah no.

Rob Schneider: has there been any movie he's been in that wasn't made that much worse by his inclusion?

Tyler Perry makes movies?

I thought they just made fun of him on Family Guy these days....

Here's a couple more people that SOMEHOW have movie careers, despite their lack of acting talent.

David Arquette
Pauly Shore
Shaq
Steven Segal
Jean Claude VanDamme

Tim Robbins. I can't remember the last movie he was in that was worth a damn. Oh, wait, I tell a lie. There was Mystic River but, given the other actors that surrounded him, I think it was good in spite of him, rather than because of him.

Jim Carrey. *shudders*

Jim Carrey. *shudders*

This is why Jim Carrey has a career:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZIuzQcvlTU

:)

Was "Yes Man" any good? I wanted to see it but I never got around to going to see it, because of my lack of a job at the time...

Ben Stiller.

Rob Schneider: has there been any movie he's been in that wasn't made that much worse by his inclusion?

This guy, I mean I just can't understand how his movies are made, how is the green light given to release the funds necessary, it must be some sort of tax scam or something because they defy belief.

I assume he must have been funny somewhere once at least, I've only seen, well, seen snatches of, a couple of movies and they just take 'comedy' outside and beat it up for a while leaving it helpless, bleeding in the gutter.

How he has any career is mystifying.

I've said this a lot before, but it is relevant nonetheless. These two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Friedberg_and_Aaron_Seltzer) need to kept away from all film equipment for the rest of their lives. I'll add any more if I think of them.

Same goes for Adam Sandler. "I get angry easily and start yelling! It's really funny!". ah no.

Fuck no. He stared a while back in a movie called Reign Over Me, and I know you wouldn't think Adam Sandler could carry a serious drama (about a guy who lost his family on 911, no less), or hold his own along side Don Cheadle, but he did. For that one movie, I will not accept attacks on Sandler's acting abilities. Its just a pity that he does comedies all the time and not dramas.

While we're at it, maybe we could include Rick Berman and Branon Braga? I mean, they all but drove Star Trek into the ground. Though I'll admit they had their good moments, so I guess they deserve some career. Just not running an entire franchise.;)

I've said this a lot before, but it is relevant nonetheless. These two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Friedberg_and_Aaron_Seltzer) need to kept away from all film equipment for the rest of their lives. I'll add any more if I think of them.

Well, your link has highlighted another person I'm astounded has a movie career (Carmen Electra). She's not bad to look at, but she needs to put the scripts down.

I've said this a lot before, but it is relevant nonetheless. These two (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Friedberg_and_Aaron_Seltzer) need to kept away from all film equipment for the rest of their lives. I'll add any more if I think of them.

But those two are like Rogers and Hammerstein compared to this fucker:

http://353review.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uwe.jpg

But those two are like Rogers and Hammerstein compared to this fucker:

http://353review.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/uwe.jpg

I can't judge Uwe Boll as I haven't seen any of his films.

Based on the movie Pearl Harbor which is the modern archetype of technical, social and historical inaccuracy, can we keep Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett (I may concede that they are capable of acting their way out of a paper bag) away from, at very least, any decision making where movies are concerned. It also pretty much solidified my opinion that Bruckheimer needs to stay away from the big screen altogether.

Was "Yes Man" any good? I wanted to see it but I never got around to going to see it, because of my lack of a job at the time...

Jim Carrey was really the only good thing about it IMO.

Based on the movie Pearl Harbor which is the modern archetype of technical, social and historical inaccuracy, can we keep Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett (I may concede that they are capable of acting their way out of a paper bag) away from, at very least, any decision making where movies are concerned. It also pretty much solidified my opinion that Bruckheimer needs to stay away from the big screen altogether.

The action sequence was nice though.

I can't judge Uwe Boll as I haven't seen any of his films.

Ever seen a monkey fling shit at a wall? The man cast Tara Reid as a scientist in Alone In The Dark. You know she's a scientist, because she has glasses.

Based on the movie Pearl Harbor which is the modern archetype of technical, social and historical inaccuracy, can we keep Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett (I may concede that they are capable of acting their way out of a paper bag) away from, at very least, any decision making where movies are concerned. It also pretty much solidified my opinion that Bruckheimer needs to stay away from the big screen altogether.

But didn't Bruckheimer help bring us Pirates of the Carribean? For that, I forgive him.

But didn't Bruckheimer help bring us Pirates of the Carribean? For that, I forgive him.

We-ell, ok. But it just barely makes up for the travesty that was Pearl Harbor.

Fuck no. He stared a while back in a movie called Reign Over Me, and I know you wouldn't think Adam Sandler could carry his own in a serious drama (about a guy who lost his family on 911, no less), or hold his own along side Don Cheadle, but he did. For that one movie, I will not accept attacks on Sandler's acting abilities. Its just a pity that he does comedies all the time and not dramas.
I've not seen that film, though I've heard from more than a few that Sandler's acting is quite the revelation.
That said, he's gonna have to do a lot more than just one decent movie to purge the stains and blights on the celluloid landscape that are "Happy Gilmore", "The Waterboy", "Little Nicky" & "Big Daddy".


As an aside, I find it interesting how good comedians are when they do serious roles and how the reverse rarely applies (serious actors doing comedy usually = gagcringewtfdoess/hethinkss/he'sdoing? reaction).
Robin Williams for eg was rather good in 'One hour photo' and 'Insomnia' (though I didn't care much for either movie), and Eric Bana has proven he's an incredible actor, belying his rather humble origins on 'Full Frontal' (an Aussie skit show for you ignorant ones).

Michael Caine.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he uses the same voice no matter what role, whether that be German, Polish or English :P

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, creators of Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie. How they continue to get funding is beyond me.

But didn't Bruckheimer help bring us Pirates of the Carribean? For that, I forgive him.
He also gave us parts II & III, which were appalling turkeys.
Not to mention:
Flashdance
Top Gun
Days of Thunder
Con Air
Armageddon
Gone in Sixty seconds
Coyote Ugly (for this alone he should be hung, drawn and quartered)
Kangaroo Jack
King Arthur
National Treasure I & II
and Bad Boys I & II.

The only movies he's produced which aren't travesties are aforementioned Pirates, Black Hawk down & The Rock.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, creators of Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie. How they continue to get funding is beyond me.
How? Easily answered: Their movies make a profit.

How? Easily answered: Their movies make a profit.

It's embarrassing to be human, knowing that people allow those films to make a profit.

It's embarrassing to be human, knowing that people allow those films to make a profit.
It is indeed. At least we can convince ourselves we're not aiding their cause to prove Darwin wrong by never attending one of their abysmal turkeys.
They're proof that you'll never go broke underestimating the average teenager's capacity for fart jokes.

Top Gun
Con Air
King Arthur
National Treasure I & II
and Bad Boys I & II.

I wouldn't call these 'appalling turkeys.' I've seen them, and felt myself adequately recompensed for my entertainment dollar, which is really all I ask out of a movie.

Fuck no. He stared a while back in a movie called Reign Over Me, and I know you wouldn't think Adam Sandler could carry a serious drama (about a guy who lost his family on 911, no less), or hold his own along side Don Cheadle, but he did. For that one movie, I will not accept attacks on Sandler's acting abilities. Its just a pity that he does comedies all the time and not dramas.

I've not seen that film, though I've heard from more than a few that Sandler's acting is quite the revelation.
That said, he's gonna have to do a lot more than just one decent movie to purge the stains and blights on the celluloid landscape that are "Happy Gilmore", "The Waterboy", "Little Nicky" & "Big Daddy".

I agree with The Romulan Republic here, Sandler is actually a very good actor. His other non-retarded roles are Punchdrunk Love (I actually liked this movie and thought he was great) and Spanglish (meh, but he did well). I've not seen Reign Over Me, though.

But, ya, it's weird. Sandler is actually a good actor when he's not in the next version of Happy Gilmore. And what's even odder is that, with movies like Grandma's Boy, Happy Madison Studios or whatever actually puts out hilarious comedies when Sandler isn't in them. Proof that he just needs to give up on the comedy bit, let his buddies do it, and do more subdued comedy/drama.

Ben Affleck. *gags*

Liam Neeson.

Why does he get all these big roles? He can't act for shit.

Keanu Reeves.

He has been playing the same character in every movie he's ever in.

Keanu Reeves.

He has been playing the same character in every movie he's ever in.

Just like Mel Gibson. *nod*

Liam Neeson.

Why does he get all these big roles? He can't act for shit.

He manages not to say "hi" at the end of sentences. That's an amazing feat in itself for a guy from Ballymena

Couldn't resist

Just like Mel Gibson. *nod*

And Nicolas Cage.

Who's the tubby fellow with the curly hair? You know, the one who keeps remaking that movie, "I'm An Extremely Unattractive Boy-Man Who Can't Function, Yet Women Are So Desperate To Score A Ring That They Will Totally Bone Me"?

If I have to hear one more person tell me about how that dude is "edgy" I will kill this kitten. I swear to god. Don't push me.

Nicholas Cage.

The man has NO SOUL.

owen wilson.

i find him completely talentless and kinda funny looking.

Who's the tubby fellow with the curly hair? You know, the one who keeps remaking that movie, "I'm An Extremely Unattractive Boy-Man Who Can't Function, Yet Women Are So Desperate To Score A Ring That They Will Totally Bone Me"?

If I have to hear one more person tell me about how that dude is "edgy" I will kill this kitten. I swear to god. Don't push me.
i think that kitten is doomed.

ive never SEEN any of his movies so i cant judge whether or not he has any talent but i do wish that they would stop making the "homely loser gets the hot chick" movies.

Liam Neeson.

Why does he get all these big roles? He can't act for shit.

Though he was great in Fallout 3.

Though he was great in Fallout 3.
He was a deadpan voice in Fallout 3, little else.

And Nicolas Cage.

Yes!


Basically you need to be able to act or you need to be good looking and pretend like you can act.......Cage......can't do either.

You know who else is a shitty actor but he looks good (i.e. a bit over horrifyingly ugly) so I ignore it? Ben Affleck. He has such a shallow affect that any emotion he "conveys" is just...they're all the same.

He was a deadpan voice in Fallout 3, little else.
ya but LOTS of male actors have deadpan voices, a one note acting style and an incredible career.

john wayne, kevin costner, keanu reeves spring to mind immediately. you seem to be over estimating the value of voice dynamics.

i think that kitten is doomed.

ive never SEEN any of his movies so i cant judge whether or not he has any talent but i do wish that they would stop making the "homely loser gets the hot chick" movies.

They'll always make movies like that, and I've come to terms with it, but I'm so goddam sick of people saying, "Oooh, he's so edgy!"

Movies about ugly sexists who get lots of poon are REVOLUTIONARY! The story of an unattractive male geek who gets a totally hot chick at the end is NEW AND DIFFERENT!

And Nicolas Cage.

And every member of the Frat Pack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frat_pack) except Steve Carell

Tyler Perry. How the hell does this happen? His latest movie, "Madea Goes to Jail" is his highest grossing film ever. I think I vomited a little in my mouth. :(

So, whose film career continues to perplex you?
you havent WATCHED any of those movies have you?

i havent but there seems to be a constant market for men in drag movies. men in old lady drag are means for us to laugh at older black women without being racist sexist pieces of shit. who wouldnt want that?

Yes!


Basically you need to be able to act or you need to be good looking and pretend like you can act.......Cage......can't do either.

You know who else is a shitty actor but he looks good (i.e. a bit over horrifyingly ugly) so I ignore it? Ben Affleck. He has such a shallow affect that any emotion he "conveys" is just...they're all the same.

No no no, Ben Affleck has carved out a very nice niche for him playing arrogant assholes who you want to punch. Maybe you can't call it "acting" if he's just acting like himself, but Ben Affleck conveys smugness and arrogance better than anyone else in Hollywood.

No no no, Ben Affleck has carved out a very nice niche for him playing arrogant assholes who you want to punch. Maybe you can't call it "acting" if he's just acting like himself, but Ben Affleck conveys smugness and arrogance better than anyone else in Hollywood.

Billy Zane seems like a contender though

I've also wondered how some people had a career as a singer when they're barely capable of singing, have no other talent, and can't play an instrument or write a song. Somehow, they are "musicians".

No no no, Ben Affleck has carved out a very nice niche for him playing arrogant assholes who you want to punch. Maybe you can't call it "acting" if he's just acting like himself, but Ben Affleck conveys smugness and arrogance better than anyone else in Hollywood.

Right, and Keanu does the "whoa, that's trippy I just smoked a bunch of pot" thing better than anyone else too.

I'd rather them have some range.....

I've also wondered how some people had a career as a singer when they're barely capable of singing, have no other talent, and can't play an instrument or write a song. Somehow, they are "musicians".

I like to call them "vocalists". ;)

No no no, Ben Affleck has carved out a very nice niche for him playing arrogant assholes who you want to punch. Maybe you can't call it "acting" if he's just acting like himself, but Ben Affleck conveys smugness and arrogance better than anyone else in Hollywood.

Thing is, in interviews and such he really has never come off as arrogant or smug. Most directors and actors who meet him also say he's fairly down to earth. For whatever reason, though, when he puts on his "acting face" it's always the face of a complete douchebag.

They'll always make movies like that, and I've come to terms with it, but I'm so goddam sick of people saying, "Oooh, he's so edgy!"

Movies about ugly sexists who get lots of poon are REVOLUTIONARY! The story of an unattractive male geek who gets a totally hot chick at the end is NEW AND DIFFERENT!

See, the funny thing is I can't tell if you're talking about Jonah Hill (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Jonah_Hill_-_001.jpg) or if you're talking about Seth Rogen (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/SethRogen_7_2007.JPG).

Right, and Keanu does the "whoa, that's trippy I just smoked a bunch of pot" thing better than anyone else too.

I'd rather them have some range.....

But by all accounts Keanu is like that in real life. Keanu's just being Keanu in every role he takes. But Ben Affleck is pretty universally regarded as a decent guy off-screen, not at all like he is on screen. Like PL said, it seems that his "acting mode" only has one setting, turd.

I've also wondered how some people had a career as a singer when they're barely capable of singing, have no other talent, and can't play an instrument or write a song. Somehow, they are "musicians".
technology and the willingness to wear skimpy clothing while "dancing" around the stage.

But by all accounts Keanu is like that in real life. Keanu's just being Keanu in every role he takes. But Ben Affleck is pretty universally regarded as a decent guy off-screen, not at all like he is on screen. Like PL said, it seems that his "acting mode" only has one setting, turd.

Ben Affleck can't act. He's not even that good looking.

I missed you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I missed you more than that movie missed the point,
And that's an awful lot, girl, and
Now, now you've gone away... and all I'm trying to say, is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school (school school).
He was terrible in that film.
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part (part part).
He's way better than Ben Affleck.
And now, all I can think about is your smile, and that shitty movie, too.
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

Pearl Harbor sucked...
Just a little bit more than I miss you...

Ben Affleck can't act. He's not even that good looking.

I missed you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
When he made Pearl Harbor
I missed you more than that movie missed the point,
And that's an awful lot, girl, and
Now, now you've gone away... and all I'm trying to say, is
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you
I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school (school school).
He was terrible in that film.
I need you like Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part (part part).
He's way better than Ben Affleck.
And now, all I can think about is your smile, and that shitty movie, too.
Pearl Harbor sucked, and I miss you

Pearl Harbor sucked...
Just a little bit more than I miss you...
lol

whats that from?

lol

whats that from?

the movie "Team America"

Ben Affleck can't act. He's not even that good looking.

Sure he can. We just established this. He can act like a goddamn asshole. He's supposedly a very nice guy in real life, so the fact that he can play such a convincing douchebag in every one of his acting roles shows that he can at least nail one character, right?

Sure he can. We just established this. He can act like a goddamn asshole. He's supposedly a very nice guy in real life, so the fact that he can play such a convincing douchebag in every one of his acting roles shows that he can at least nail one character, right?

I usually assume that a lead actor is capable of more than one role.

If he's only good at one role, he might be a "character" actor, and therefore won't be a lead.

I usually assume that a lead actor is capable of more than one role.

If he's only good at one role, he might be a "character" actor, and therefore won't be a lead.
you need to look at leading actors.

many many of them only play one role.

and make a splendid career out of it.

character actors are the ones who can play a variety of roles and who blend into the characters they play.

I usually assume that a lead actor is capable of more than one role.

If he's only good at one role, he might be a "character" actor, and therefore won't be a lead.

Well, no offense, but you know what they say about when you assume.

There have been plenty of "lead" actors who weren't good looking or talented but made millions upon millions of dollars. Names like Stallone and Segal.

Well, no offense, but you know what they say about when you assume.

There have been plenty of "lead" actors who weren't good looking or talented but made millions upon millions of dollars. Names like Stallone and Segal.

Or Jack Nicholson. I mean, I like the character he plays, I like it a lot. But, ffs, people, he isn't this incredible amazing actor. He plays the same freaking character. His Joker wasn't that different than the guy he played in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; in fact, it was pretty much identical.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?

But by all accounts Keanu is like that in real life. Keanu's just being Keanu in every role he takes. But Ben Affleck is pretty universally regarded as a decent guy off-screen, not at all like he is on screen. Like PL said, it seems that his "acting mode" only has one setting, turd.

You do have a point.

What baffles me even more than the people who shouldn't have careers is the people who shouldn't have the careers they have - most particularly, the comedians who actually have talent when they want to, but persist in making unbelievably shitty movies instead of actually being funny. Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell epitomize this. Both of them can actually do comedy, and yet persist on making movie after movie after movie where the "humor" consists entirely of "LOL THE LEAD CHARACTER IS LIKE STUPID AND LOUD AND STUFF, MAN IS THAT FUNNY OR WHAT."

john wayne, kevin costner, keanu reeves spring to mind immediately. you seem to be over estimating the value of voice dynamics.
Holding up Keanu Reeves as an example of a good actor isn't exactly... wise.

It's not his voice I'm objecting to, Neeson is just a poor actor. When he's on-screen, he's Liam Neeson, not a character. He just sits there, wooden and boring, looking slightly bemused.


Both of them can actually do comedy, and yet persist on making movie after movie after movie where the "humor" consists entirely of "LOL THE LEAD CHARACTER IS LIKE STUPID AND LOUD AND STUFF, MAN IS THAT FUNNY OR WHAT."
"Hmmm, my last movie where I played a rather stupid person who ends up learning an obvious moral made lots of money... perhaps I should make twelve more..."

Anchorman was funny, the other Will Ferrell movies are just crappier versions of the same schtick.

Oh, I also want to put Will Smith and his child-spawn on this list, too. I Am Legend resurrected my innocence just to murder it again and I blame Will Smith because he's recognizable. His kid really was the thing that killed The Day the Earth Stood Still (a movie that had a role perfectly made for Keanu Reaves). The Smith family is a clan of destroyers. DESTROYERS!

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?

There are lots, but they don't, by and large, tend to be the ones that achieve Hollywood superstardom, because producers have figured out you can make more money making essentially the same romantic comedy 400 times than pushing an actor's limits by throwing interesting challenges at them. If you want really amazing and versatile actors, look to the people farther down the credits, and look to Broadway and the West End.

Holding up Keanu Reeves as an example of a good actor isn't exactly... wise.

It's not his voice I'm objecting to, Neeson is just a poor actor. When he's on-screen, he's Liam Neeson, not a character. He just sits there, wooden and boring, looking slightly bemused.



"Hmmm, my last movie where I played a rather stupid person who ends up learning an obvious moral made lots of money... perhaps I should make twelve more..."

Anchorman was funny, the other Will Ferrell movies are just crappier versions of the same schtick.
ya but THEY ALL ARE.

that is my point. not that john wayne, kevin costner, or keanu reeves are great actors but that they have amazing careers.

there are actors who act and there are actors who people love to see on screen playing a role as themselves.

See, most of these people who have careers have them because they were in one or two good movies, and people assume all the rest of their work will be good too.

Uwe Boll, however, is an exception. He has never done anything that would compare favorably to a good punch in the gut.

Or Jack Nicholson. I mean, I like the character he plays, I like it a lot. But, ffs, people, he isn't this incredible amazing actor. He plays the same freaking character. His Joker wasn't that different than the guy he played in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; in fact, it was pretty much identical.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?

Brad Pitt has good range, but he lets himself get pigeonholed into playing Brad Pitt too often because it results in trillions of women going to see all of his movies. George Clooney too, to a lesser extent.

Brad Pitt has good range, but he lets himself get pigeonholed into playing Brad Pitt too often because it results in trillions of women going to see all of his movies. George Clooney too, to a lesser extent.
See Burn After Reading for a perfect example of what great stuff these guys can do when they're not playing themselves.

See Burn After Reading for a perfect example of what great stuff these guys can do when they're not playing themselves.

That's actually exactly the movie I was thinking about while typing that post.

Harry Potter's Devil Magic.

Tyler Perry. How the hell does this happen? His latest movie, "Madea Goes to Jail" is his highest grossing film ever. I think I vomited a little in my mouth. :(

So, whose film career continues to perplex you?
You spelled it wrong, it is Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail. The Tyler Perry is the most important part of any of Tyler Perry's titles. Did you know that if you say Tyler Perry's name three times while looking into a mirror, Tyler Perry gets a boner? Or, as Tyler Perry prefers to call it, a Tyler Perry's Miniature Tyler Perry.
i do wish that they would stop making the "homely loser gets the hot chick" movies.
Not gonna happen. Script writers tend to be homely losers (or, at least they were growing up) so of course they're going to live out their fantasies and get revenge on the attractive guys (who have always secretly been jerks and always will be).

That's actually exactly the movie I was thinking about while typing that post.
Great minds think alike and fools seldom differ...

Also, at least regarding George Clooney, O Brother, Where Art Thou?.

The Coen's have the magic touch.

I wonder about a large swath of celebrity 'actors' in general, tbh. Sandra Bullock always made me cringe.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?
Dustin Hoffman.

Guah, I wasn't saying actors with great ranges don't exist! I was just pointing out that I couldn't think of any at that precise moment. Yes, yes, you're all very cinematically knowledgeable and have shamed me, bah. =p

Guah, I wasn't saying actors with great ranges don't exist! I was just pointing out that I couldn't think of any at that precise moment. Yes, yes, you're all very cinematically knowledgeable and have shamed me, bah. =p
No no, I take your point...the thing is, I had to put my mind to it to think of examples :P.

I'd also agree with the poster who said Brad Pitt would be on that list. He's actually a non-terribad actor, it's just that if he plays Brad Pitt, Hottest Being In The Universe, it will cause a great many people to become turgid/moist and this will translate into money. So he gets paid to be a crappier actor than he really is.

Also, random obligatory feminazi thought:

What does it say about the movies, that everybody (myself included) is talking exclusively about male actors/directors?

What does it say about the movies, that everybody (myself included) is talking exclusively about male actors/directors?

I honestly couldn't name a single female director, much less an A-list one. I could probably come up with a few actresses that I think have a great range if I hadn't just watched a chunk of Charlie Wilson's War and all I can think of is how much I loathe Julia Roberts. Screw her and her 2.5 facial expressions.

I honestly couldn't name a single female director, much less an A-list one. I could probably come up with a few actresses that I think have a great range if I hadn't just watched a chunk of Charlie Wilson's War and all I can think of is how much I loathe Julia Roberts. Screw her and her 2.5 facial expressions.
For bonus fun, try thinking of the last time you saw a movie that had:

1) At least two female characters
2) who talk to each other
3) about something other than a man.

i think that kitten is doomed.

ive never SEEN any of his movies so i cant judge whether or not he has any talent but i do wish that they would stop making the "homely loser gets the hot chick" movies.

Why do you hate homely guys? :( *steals kitten*

You spelled it wrong, it is Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail. The Tyler Perry is the most important part of any of Tyler Perry's titles. Did you know that if you say Tyler Perry's name three times while looking into a mirror, Tyler Perry gets a boner? Or, as Tyler Perry prefers to call it, a Tyler Perry's Miniature Tyler Perry.

Damn you for making me laugh out loud at work! :p

For bonus fun, try thinking of the last time you saw a movie that had:

1) At least two female characters
2) who talk to each other
3) about something other than a man.
Rachel Getting Married springs to mind (great film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wDDgSwEo1s) btw, ignore the romcom-ish title), though I fully agree with your meaning.

For bonus fun, try thinking of the last time you saw a movie that had:

1) At least two female characters
2) who talk to each other
3) about something other than a man.

Uh....I can barely remember the last time I've actually seen a movie. But, yea, nothing comes immediately to mind, I'll be honest. Mama Mia!, maybe? Dunno, never actually saw it so I'm just tossing out a guess.

I've not seen that film, though I've heard from more than a few that Sandler's acting is quite the revelation.
That said, he's gonna have to do a lot more than just one decent movie to purge the stains and blights on the celluloid landscape that are "Happy Gilmore", "The Waterboy", "Little Nicky" & "Big Daddy".

I liked Happy Gilmore. However I will add Anger Management to the list of crappy Sandler movies.

Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, creators of Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie. How they continue to get funding is beyond me.

I beat you to that.

I liked Happy Gilmore. However I will add Anger Management to the list of crappy Sandler movies.

I actually thought Anger Management was one of Sandler's better movies.

As for Will Ferrell, while I generally hate his movies, I did enjoy "Stranger than Fiction".

Ben Affleck. *gags*

Gone Baby Gone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Baby_Gone) was pretty good. He didn't act in the movie, but he did direct it.

Gone Baby Gone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Baby_Gone) was pretty good. He didn't act in the movie, but he did direct it.

He is a horrible actor though.

He is a horrible actor though.

okay, but the thread title is "How does this person have a film career?!?", not "How does this person have an acting career?!?".

And he got a good review in Hollywoodland and Boiler Room, although I haven't actually seen those two.

Gone Baby Gone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Baby_Gone) was pretty good. He didn't act in the movie, but he did direct it.
Aye, it was a good, if flawed, movie. Amy Ryan (of The Wire fame) was blindingly good in it.

Ben's wee brother, Casey Affleck, seems far more talented than this older sibling. He's wonderful in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

okay, but the thread title is "How does this person have a film career?!?", not "How does this person have an acting career?!?".

And he got a good review in Hollywoodland and Boiler Room, although I haven't actually seen those two.

He was good in Boiler Room, playing a totally egotistical, arrogant jackass.

And he got a good review in Hollywoodland and Boiler Room, although I haven't actually seen those two.

If you haven't seen these films then, how in tarnation can you say and form a proper opinion on them? Manvir! Drop down and gimme 20 for sheer nonesense!:mp:

Brad Pitt has good range...

Agreeing with this. I'm a huge brad Pitt fan - he's arguably one of the best and most versatile actors in a generation.

Keanu Reeves, Nicholas Cage - one-dimensional, agreed! Lots of action stars in general. Oh and pretty actors who have nothing going on between their ears – Paul Walker, Freddie Prinze Jr, Josh Hartnett, Ashton Kutcher, Jason Statham, Orlando Bloom – I could go on.
Actually there’s an ongoing poll here
http://www.grupthink.com/topic/817/Who_are_the_Worst_Actors_in_Television_and_Film that highlighted a few new ones. Hmm, whatever happened to Fran Drescher? Who cares – at least she’s off our screens?! Hayden Christensen – he should’ve died with Anakin Skywalker but somehow has gained more roles. Tara Reid – yes, she’s awful.

All those ‘date/scary/stupid genre parody movies’ agreed are awful and should not be made – but there are, unfortunately, people stupid enough to buy into it. It’s funny, mediocre comedies like Hot Shots! And The Naked Gun series and similar movies all look excellent next to those parody films...

Will Ferrell (Stranger Than Fiction), Adam Sandler (Reign Over Me, Spanglish), Jim Carrey (The Truman Show, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and some of the likes have proved that they can do proper serious roles, but, yes, it does make you wonder why they don’t do them more often. Although they say that comedy is actually quite difficult to pull off, which might be a case in point as regards to Sandler, because he’s never actually made me laugh...
Steve Martin. He hasn’t made a funny film in years, and he’s an intelligent guy who can act when he wants to. Remaking a Peter Sellers film...again? Oh the shame.

Michael Caine.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he uses the same voice no matter what role, whether that be German, Polish or English :P

Michael Caine? Nah he has done accents – The Cider House Rules springs to mind, although there are probably several others. Although he did make his name for being that lovable cockney rogue – so no accent required there, and subsequently got lots of roles in the States as a British father figure/supporting character – even roles normally reserved for a posh accent like butlers, because it’s really the same difference to an American audience as long as he has some sort of British accent.

But on the topic of actors who never change their accent and get away with it – Sean Connery. But everybody loves him. He even won an Oscar for playing an ‘Irish’ policeman in The Untouchables. Although hardly anyone can get an Irish accent right in Hollywood, much less tell the difference between an Irishman and a Sctosman but that's a different story.

Ben Affleck. *gags*
In Ben Affleck’s defence I think that he has started to redeem himself. Indeed for about a decade he was a very dull, wooden actor – no idea how he got such big parts because I don’t think he’s even that good-looking (actually probably better looking now that he’s aged a bit). Yes Pearl Harbour sucked, and Daredevil and Paycheck and whatever else he was in besides Good Will Hunting in which he fortunately did not have a very big part. He’s been married a few years with kids, away from all that J-Lo stuff, and is clearly trying to do edgier work and shy away from his ‘crap actor’ label. He was quite good in Hollywoodland – nothing revelatory but certainly not bad, perhaps even better than mediocre – and has taken a stab at directing, although I haven’t seen the film “Gone Baby Gone” received excellent reviews. That one stars his younger brother Casey, who is clearly a far more talented actor. He’s shown he’s able to take a joke with the “I’m Fucking Ben Affleck” Jimmy Kimmel music video and with a recent-ish appearance on Saturday Night Live in which he did a good impersonation of Keith Olbermann.

If he's only good at one role, he might be a "character" actor, and therefore won't be a lead.
As stated a CHARACTER ACTOR is an actor who actually has talent, a lot of the time isn’t conventionally attractive and can be a complete chameleon in their roles. I’ve heard Geoffrey Rush (who? – look at my character name ;P) describe himself as one and I would agree there. Other character actors would be Dustin Hoffman as mentioned, Al Pacino and Robert de Niro and Tom Hanks but more so in their earlier days, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Penn, Denzel Washington, Steve Buscemi, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Forest Whitaker, Anthony Hopkins, Johnny Depp – to name but a few living ones.

There are probably fewer noteworthy female character actors because Hollywood often tends to resign women to the role of eye candy in the film – if present at all. But you could rope Meryl Streep, Frances MacDormand, Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchett, Kathy Bates, Emily Watson, Susan Sarandon, Miriam Margolyes and others (it’s so difficult to come up with female names) into that list, with some of them being leading ladies and others strictly supporting actresses.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?Gary Oldman too.

As far as careers though, M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense was his only decent movie. Everything else has sucked beyond comprehension.


You spelled it wrong, it is Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail. The Tyler Perry is the most important part of any of Tyler Perry's titles. Did you know that if you say Tyler Perry's name three times while looking into a mirror, Tyler Perry gets a boner? Or, as Tyler Perry prefers to call it, a Tyler Perry's Miniature Tyler Perry.Why must they limit our signature size?

Ben's wee brother, Casey Affleck, seems far more talented than this older sibling. He's wonderful in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

I'll just say the entire cast of that movie was fantastic. The Assassination of Jesse James is probably one of my top 10.

Oh, and I'll second Jason Statham. I don't understand the appeal. He was good in Snatch and Lock, Stock and I'll even admit that he's a very talented martial artist. Unfortunately he's an insanely boring to watch martial artists, he's not good at movie martial arts....which is necessary to do martial arts movies like he is constantly trying to do.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?

Tom Hanks is right, I think. And Garry Oldman has already been mentioned, but I'll second him. Johny Depp is the obvious one. I'd say Heath Ledger counts as well.

Jim Carrey. *shudders*

He's actually a really good actor. See the Series of Unfortunate Events movie and The Truman Show. He is just really shitty at picking movies generally, and can't do serious drama for shit.

Tom Hanks has already been mentioned, but Johny Depp is the obvious one. I'd say Heath Ledger counts as well.
Johnny Depp++
I can't think of anything I havn't seen him play successfully.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I can't think, off the top of my head, of any actors that do have a range of characters. Tom Hanks, maybe?
Ben Kinglsey. That man can ACT.

Dustin Hoffman.
Dustin Hoffman has a range of characters? really? Then why does he always choose the same whiny irritating one to play?
Not that I'm saying he's a very good actor, i's just that his character's nearly always the same one. His 'Ratso', for eg, is just a homeless version of his 'Thomas Levy' (from Marathon Man). On a similar note, Bruce Willis is a very good actor. Sure his range is a tad narrow, but he appears to recognise his limitations and works extremely well within them.
Some actors with great range that I can think of, are Ewan McGregor, Robert Carlyle, Christopher Eccleston, Judi Dench, Stellan Skarsgård, and Cliff Curtis. Skarsgård & Curtis especially.

I don't think it striking that none of them are American; the reason being that Hollywood forces actors into set roles, whereby they end up playing the same character over and over again in every movie, becoming little more than caricatures of themselves (and then they parody this typecasting a la Bob Deniro in 'Analyse this' and 'Meet the parents'). Hollywood does this because they know it will sell, and so make movies that have roles specifically tailored for that particular actor.
Unfortunately we as the audience have to take some responsibility for this. We, as a group, watch the films where actor x plays HIS character making them profitable and shun the films where actor x tries to break out and attempts something different.

Johny Depp is the obvious one.
mmm...I dunno. I mean he's an incredibly versatile actor (though he can't do accents to save himself - see his dreadful attempt at an Irish accent in 'Chocolat') but, like DiCaprio (also another good actor), I can't get past knowing that I'm watching Depp (or DiCaprio) act.
They're too recognisable, too damn handsome, for me to be able to forget that they are who they are.

Stellan Skarsgård or Cliff Curtis, for example: there's been movies they've appeared in that I didn't even realise that it was them until the end credits. They're not using make-up or wearing prosthetics or anything, it's just they're so damn good at acting they somehow disappear completely into that role.

Ben Kinglsey. That man can ACT.

He can act, but he's also got a mercenary attitude when it comes to films. Otherwise he wouldn't have contributed to the cinematic crime that was Bloodrayne.

He can act, but he's also got a mercenary attitude when it comes to films. Otherwise he wouldn't have contributed to the cinematic crime that was Bloodrayne.
We can forgive him for that one blip in his career. For all we know he might have had a gambling debt to pay off or, like Michael Caine, has reached the age where he now chooses films on their location and not their script.
As Michael Caine once famously said about his role in the cinematic nightmare that is Jaws IV, which was along the lines of 'I've never watched it, but I've often admired the swimming pool it bought me'. The ultimate irony was he was in the Bahamas filming that movie when he won the Oscar for his performance in 'Hannah and her sisters'.
You can't get more extreme than that.

If you haven't seen these films then, how in tarnation can you say and form a proper opinion on them? Manvir! Drop down and gimme 20 for sheer nonesense!:mp:

I wasn't giving my opinion, merely stating that others said that he did a good job in those movies.

Aye, it was a good, if flawed, movie. Amy Ryan (of The Wire fame) was blindingly good in it.

Ben's wee brother, Casey Affleck, seems far more talented than this older sibling. He's wonderful in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Agreed.

Just like Mel Gibson. *nod*

He was really good in Hamlet, though.

If I have to hear one more person tell me about how that dude is "edgy" I will kill this kitten. I swear to god. Don't push me.
Seth Rogan, is that his name? I have to agree with the "edgy" complaint; his movies may be funny, and they may be raunchy, but that is not the same thing as edgy.

He was really good in Hamlet, though.

Hamlet, a good Hamlet was and will always be Kenneth Brannagh, or however you spell his name.

Hamlet, a good Hamlet was and will always be Kenneth Brannagh, or however you spell his name.
'Brananananananananaghnagh', I believe.


Stellan Skarsgård or Cliff Curtis, for example: there's been movies they've appeared in that I didn't even realise that it was them until the end credits. They're not using make-up or wearing prosthetics or anything, it's just they're so damn good at acting they somehow disappear completely into that role.
That's a great way of describing Skarsgård.

Alex Skarsgård (Generation Kill, True Blood), his son, is also shaping up to be a damn fine actor.

That's a great way of describing Skarsgård.

Alex Skarsgård (Generation Kill, True Blood), his son, is also shaping up to be a damn fine actor.
I haven't seen those movies. Will have to look out for them.
I remember watching, "Ronin" and being totally bugged about who the actress was that played the Irish lass, as I was sure I'd seen her in something else. So I waited to read thru the credits and was gobsmacked to see Skarsgård's name up there as the Russian baddy. I just did not realise it was him at all.
Might have been cause the last two movies I'd see of him were, "Breaking the waves" and "Zero Kelvin" but still, to watch him on screen for most of 2+ hours and not once click.

Cliff Curtis is a great actor too. Read through his acting credits on imdb. It's impressive: Uncle Bully in 'Once were warriors", a Kurdish fighter in "Three Kings", Pablo Escobar in "Blow", S.American terrorist in, "Collateral Damage", the father in "Whale Rider", FBI agent in "Die Hard IV"...he's not someone who can be typecast into just one role.

Anyone who criticizes Tyler Perry is a racist.

Steve Gutenberg. How he has remained so consistently popular over the years is a mystery to me.

Vince Vaughan.
Surely there's only so many movies that can be made using the exact same character as the one from Dodgeball.

Same goes for Adam Sandler. "I get angry easily and start yelling! It's really funny!". ah no.

Rob Schneider: has there been any movie he's been in that wasn't made that much worse by his inclusion?

All three of these.

Plus, John Hedr. I enjoyed Napolean Dynamite... but all of his characters feel the exact same... but aren't.

Why is one single character enough to make a cadre of unrelated movies over, and over again these days?

Steve Gutenberg. How he has remained so consistently popular over the years is a mystery to me.

Stonecutters. *nod* http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/3714/stonecutters2df3.jpg

Was "Yes Man" any good? I wanted to see it but I never got around to going to see it, because of my lack of a job at the time...

It's pretty good... I didn't realize they were tucking a morality lesson in it until the end... so that was a bit disappointing... but it was still a good flick.

Michael Caine.

Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but he uses the same voice no matter what role, whether that be German, Polish or English :P

Watch "Dirt Rotten Scoundrels" he throws out quite the Germanic accent.

For bonus fun, try thinking of the last time you saw a movie that had:1) At least two female characters
2) who talk to each other
3) about something other than a man.

In Sex and the City they talk to each other about shoes and dresses. At least, that's what I was told, I didn't see it myself.

And he got a good review in Hollywoodland and Boiler Room, although I haven't actually seen those two.

Those were actually pretty good. Out of the two, I'd have to say Hollywoodland was better.

I haven't seen those movies. Will have to look out for them.They're both HBO shows.

Good 'uns, too.

EDIT: Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNkDipHfUCE&feature=related) is teh Generation Kill trailer (Skarsgård is the first soldier you see, portrait to camera straight after the explosion) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r77tta6HPw) is a wee bitty of True Blood.

Dustin Hoffman has a range of characters? really? Then why does he always choose the same whiny irritating one to play? Not that I'm saying he's a very good actor, i's just that his character's nearly always the same one. His 'Ratso', for eg, is just a homeless version of his 'Thomas Levy' (from Marathon Man).

Watch Rain Man and then watch Hook, back to back. Hoffman has range, but (like most actors) he gets more money for playing certain roles.


On a similar note, Bruce Willis is a very good actor. Sure his range is a tad narrow, but he appears to recognise his limitations and works extremely well within them.

Willis is a one-note-wonder, but he is brilliant at playing that note. I don't care if the man has range because when I go to see a Bruce Willis movie I want to see a gravely-voiced underdog getting the everloving shit kicked out of him for 90 minutes while he wages a successful guerrilla war against some bank robbers or terrorists or whateverthefuck.

Watch Rain Man and then watch Hook, back to back. Hoffman has range, but (like most actors) he gets more money for playing certain roles.
Rain Man was just his Ratso with a complex. And I refuse to watch Hook. I tried once but the constant background music irritated me no end. If you closed your eyes and just listened to the music, you could tell who was on the screen and what was happening. It's a sad indictment of a film when they need to have music to convey emotion. Hook was just Pantomine anyway, third rate Panto at that. How hard is it to play Widow Twanky with a hook for a hand, really?

Willis is a one-note-wonder, but he is brilliant at playing that note. I don't care if the man has range because when I go to see a Bruce Willis movie I want to see a gravely-voiced underdog getting the everloving shit kicked out of him for 90 minutes while he wages a successful guerrilla war against some bank robbers or terrorists or whateverthefuck.
Hmm. Apparently you've never seen 'Sixth sense', 'Moonlighting', 'Twelve Monkeys', 'Sin City', 'The lucky number s7evin' or 'Pulp Fiction'. How sad. I pity you.

Rain Man was just his Ratso with a complex. And I refuse to watch Hook. I tried once but the constant background music irritated me no end. If you closed your eyes and just listened to the music, you could tell who was on the screen and what was happening. It's a sad indictment of a film when they need to have music to convey emotion. Hook was just Pantomine anyway, third rate Panto at that. How hard is it to play Widow Twanky with a hook for a hand, really?

*shrug* Agree to disagree if you want. I think he does fine, and Hook was a kid's movie so...yeah, they use music cues. Kinda expected.


Hmm. Apparently you've never seen 'Sixth sense', 'Moonlighting', 'Twelve Monkeys', 'Sin City', 'The lucky number s7evin' or 'Pulp Fiction'. How sad. I pity you.
Seen all of the above, actually, I'm a Willis fan, so you don't have to waste time trying to be condescending :D.

I don't agree with your assessment; I think Willis has one good "type" that he excels at playing, and while he's tried on some other roles he never particularly shines in them.

Who's the tubby fellow with the curly hair? You know, the one who keeps remaking that movie, "I'm An Extremely Unattractive Boy-Man Who Can't Function, Yet Women Are So Desperate To Score A Ring That They Will Totally Bone Me"?

If I have to hear one more person tell me about how that dude is "edgy" I will kill this kitten. I swear to god. Don't push me.

NO! Kill me, instead! Leave the poor kitten alone. :(

The Coen's have the magic touch.

Didn't they make that steaming pile of monkey shit called Fargo?

He was really good in Hamlet, though.

*groans, pukes*

Hmm. Apparently you've never seen 'Sixth sense', 'Moonlighting', 'Twelve Monkeys', 'Sin City', 'The lucky number s7evin' or 'Pulp Fiction'. How sad. I pity you.

I've seen three of those and Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis character in every one of them. Same with Fifth Element. The only thing that makes Sixth Sense different is there is no kicking the shit out of anyone but he is still the same guy. Maybe the same guy on prozac or something.

a gravely-voiced underdog getting the everloving shit kicked out of him for 90 minutes

'Twelve Monkeys', 'Sin City', 'Pulp Fiction'.

Really? Have YOU seen those movies?

Rain Man was just his Ratso with a complex. And I refuse to watch Hook. I tried once but the constant background music irritated me no end. If you closed your eyes and just listened to the music, you could tell who was on the screen and what was happening. It's a sad indictment of a film when they need to have music to convey emotion. Hook was just Pantomine anyway, third rate Panto at that. How hard is it to play Widow Twanky with a hook for a hand, really?I've never seen anyone so anti-leitmotif. Weird thing to get pissed off at. Anti music in general it sounds. Filmmakers use music to emphasize emotion. It was a kid movie so that is ramped up.

Was "Yes Man" any good? I wanted to see it but I never got around to going to see it, because of my lack of a job at the time...

Yeah, it's fairly amusing.

Tim Robbins. I can't remember the last movie he was in that was worth a damn. Oh, wait, I tell a lie. There was Mystic River but, given the other actors that surrounded him, I think it was good in spite of him, rather than because of him.

The Shawshank Redemption mean anything to you?

The Shawshank Redemption mean anything to you?

What a horrendous pile of shit that was.

Didn't they make that steaming pile of monkey shit called Fargo?
They indeed made Fargo, but I'd disagree with your... assessment of it.

Why the hate?

What a horrendous pile of shit that was.

Right. You can hate it all you want, but most others see things differently. It was nominated for Best Picture that year and would have won if not for Forrest Gump. The cast was great outside of Freeman and Robbins as well.

Right. You can hate it all you want, but most others see things differently. It was nominated for Best Picture that year and would have won if not for Forrest Gump. The cast was great outside of Freeman and Robbins as well.

I don't hate it, and popularity has never been an especially effective mark of quality.

The fact that 'Forrest Gump' pipped it at the post for awards, shows you how low the bar can be set, sometimes.

None of the acting was especially noteworthy. Freeman has been much better in other things, so watching him punch the clock is more of a disappointment than anything.

Most people who claim to like Shawshank, like it because it's supposed to be good. Nothing much happens in it, and it doesn't happen in an exciting or inventive way. No one is especially good in it, and the story is pretty mediocre. It's slightly less predicatble than the 'hitting the ground when you fall off a log' level, but only just.

Tim Robbins is hardly impressive. His best claim to ownership of the role is that he's fiercely average looking.

I don't hate it, and popularity has never been an especially effective mark of quality.

The fact that 'Forrest Gump' pipped it at the post for awards, shows you how low the bar can be set, sometimes.

None of the acting was especially noteworthy. Freeman has been much better in other things, so watching him punch the clock is more of a disappointment than anything.

Most people who claim to like Shawshank, like it because it's supposed to be good. Nothing much happens in it, and it doesn't happen in an exciting or inventive way. No one is especially good in it, and the story is pretty mediocre. It's slightly less predicatble than the 'hitting the ground when you fall off a log' level, but only just.

Tim Robbins is hardly impressive. His best claim to ownership of the role is that he's fiercely average looking.

By popularity I meant critically. It was not a box office smash and didn't bring in nearly the revenue of the other nominations that year. Freeman was nominated for best actor in that role so I'll just disagree that you thought his acting was horrible. The storyline was very well developed and didn't follow a stereotypical path. It gave rise to a very interesting short story written by none other than Stephen King. It's a story of hope, survival, and a human being's ability to endure great personal pain with the chance of redemption. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's a damn fine movie. It's also why it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, not only one. It is my belief that it failed only in that I would have liked to see revenge against the actual killer.

What a horrendous pile of shit that was.

and horrendous pile of shit would indicate that you indeed "hated" it. Otherwise why would you go so far to use such strong language?

By popularity I meant critically. It was not a box office smash and didn't bring in nearly the revenue of the other nominations that year. Freeman was nominated for best actor in that role so I'll just disagree that you thought his acting was horrible. The storyline was very well developed and didn't follow a stereotypical path. It gave rise to a very interesting short story written by none other than Stephen King. It's a story of hope, survival, and a human being's ability to endure great personal pain with the chance of redemption. It's not Citizen Kane, but it's a damn fine movie. It's also why it was nominated for 7 Academy Awards, not only one. It is my belief that it failed only in that I would have liked to see revenge against the actual killer.I'm almost positive that the movie was based of King's short story and not the other way around.

I'm almost positive that the movie was based of King's short story and not the other way around.

It was. It was based on one of four short stories, all of which have now been made into movies, I believe - although only "The Body in the Woods" (Stand By Me) also achieved any real success.

and horrendous pile of shit would indicate that you indeed "hated" it. Otherwise why would you go so far to use such strong language?

Hate is a strong emotional response. My indifference to Shawshank is the only 'extreme' it engenders in me.

ive never SEEN any of his movies so i cant judge whether or not he has any talent but i do wish that they would stop making the "homely loser gets the hot chick" movies.
I'd assume the people who actually make those are in fact homely losers, and therefore use the films as ways to enact their personal fantasies.

They'll always make movies like that, and I've come to terms with it, but I'm so goddam sick of people saying, "Oooh, he's so edgy!"
Yeah, I know! For something to really be edgy they have to put in more swearing. And naked people! And shooting! And blood! And more blood! That's edgy. Even if it's still immature, puerile, full of clichés and plot twists you could see miles away and the like, it's rated R, which means the audience will like it! And slap on a downer ending, and the critics will like it, too!


Why must they limit our signature size?
Meh. You might as well just put a link in your signature to H N Fiddlebottoms VIII's entire post history. The man is a walking quote dispenser.

*groans, pukes*

It was that good.

I've never seen anyone so anti-leitmotif. Weird thing to get pissed off at. Anti music in general it sounds. Filmmakers use music to emphasize emotion. It was a kid movie so that is ramped up.
what's so weird about it? Background music when done well adds an immense amount of depth to the scene. Kubrick is a master example of how to maximise musical impact. Specifically, he uses it very sparingly. Indeed all the great filmmakers use music sparingly, cause they know the scene itself should be strong enough to convey it's meaning without needing to resort to such an obvious and simplistic gimmick.

When it's done badly, as Hook is a prime example of, it totally ruins the entire movie. I can think enough for myself to work out what's going on without such an obvious attempt at playing on my emotions, thank you very much.
Hook had it blaring over the top of everything (dialogue included), in nigh-on every single scene. Not only was it condescending to the viewer, be they child or adult, it simply screamed that the filmmaker had either not the ability or confidence in himself to make a scene where the actions and dialogue would be enough to convey the point.
But that's always been one of Spielberg's many faults: He lays the music on thick and syrupy in all his movies.

what's so weird about it? Background music when done well adds an immense amount of depth to the scene. Kubrick is a master example of how to maximise musical impact. Specifically, he uses it very sparingly. Indeed all the great filmmakers use music sparingly, cause they know the scene itself should be strong enough to convey it's meaning without needing to resort to such an obvious and simplistic gimmick.

When it's done badly, as Hook is a prime example of, it totally ruins the entire movie. I can think enough for myself to work out what's going on without such an obvious attempt at playing on my emotions, thank you very much.
Hook had it blaring over the top of everything (dialogue included), in nigh-on every single scene. Not only was it condescending to the viewer, be they child or adult, it simply screamed that the filmmaker had either not the ability or confidence in himself to make a scene where the actions and dialogue would be enough to convey the point.
But that's always been one of Spielberg's many faults: He lays the music on thick and syrupy in all his movies.

Has a movie ever played on that idea with a complete lack of music in any capacity?

what's so weird about it? Background music when done well adds an immense amount of depth to the scene. Kubrick is a master example of how to maximise musical impact. Specifically, he uses it very sparingly. Indeed all the great filmmakers use music sparingly, cause they know the scene itself should be strong enough to convey it's meaning without needing to resort to such an obvious and simplistic gimmick. I disagree. Using music to emphasize scene is not the mark of a bad filmmaker. Sometimes it's more than necessary. Immortal Beloved, a film about Beethoven, has music playing in the background around 75% of the time and the film is better for it. Music done well, not necessarily sparingly, improves movies.

They'll always make movies like that, and I've come to terms with it, but I'm so goddam sick of people saying, "Oooh, he's so edgy!"

Movies about ugly sexists who get lots of poon are REVOLUTIONARY! The story of an unattractive male geek who gets a totally hot chick at the end is NEW AND DIFFERENT!

There's always comfort in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, where the geek doesn't get the girl in the end.

Tyler Perry. How the hell does this happen? His latest movie, "Madea Goes to Jail" is his highest grossing film ever. I think I vomited a little in my mouth. :(

So, whose film career continues to perplex you?

oh gah! I agree. his shit sucks. My opinion .. he was/is a token black for turner as far as his sitcom.. as for movie.. He's the only black director or something(no!)? So he's gay for pay, pay for gay hookup and they paying him a lot. His punk ass.

Keanu Reeves.

He has been playing the same character in every movie he's ever in.



quit the meme .. ugh. I thought about this the other day.. I can think of other actors who don't get sweated for it .. but basically sound the same in their films (that is what is being sweated here right? Keanus sound?), some are revered for it. Esp IF they are 'supporting' actors.. but anywho ..

Off the top of my head.. people who sound the same in almost everything (since Keanu has been in the biz) .. Al Pacino (yeah I went there hoo yah!), Kevin Spacey, James Woods, Robert Duvall, Robert De Niro (oh yeah there too!) ..... many more.. but I don't have to.. I named Pacino and De Niro.

it's coincidence that most these ppl were in the Godfather.. lol . goood movie heh.

Ben's wee brother, Casey Affleck, seems far more talented than this older sibling. He's wonderful in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

I'll just say the entire cast of that movie was fantastic. The Assassination of Jesse James is probably one of my top 10.

Wait, there are people who liked this movie? Really?

:confused:

As far as careers though, M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense was his only decent movie. Everything else has sucked beyond comprehension.

Even the Sixth Sense isn't very good...after seeing it once, there's really no reason to ever watch it again.

As for my own two cents, I'll say Jake Gyllenhaal...the only thing I ever liked him in was Donnie Darko, and you could have plugged nearly any actor his age into the role and it still would have worked.

Wait, there are people who liked this movie? Really?
Yes, really. It's a damn shame it got such a limited release.

Wonderful acting -- particularly from Pitt, Casey Affleck and Sam Rockwell -- fucking gorgeous cinematography, a great score, and a top-notch story to boot.

I know some folks find it slow, but I thought it was gripping.

There's always comfort in The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, where the geek doesn't get the girl in the end.

Obviously you havn't seen the last version, the one with Johnny Depp.

They indeed made Fargo, but I'd disagree with your... assessment of it.

Why the hate?

Admittedly, part of it is personal bias. I'm a Minnesotan, and I was pretty offended by the film's portrayal of Minnesotans. For the record, we do not sound anything like the people in that movie did. We do not have Scandinavian accents; not that there's anything wrong with said accents, but it's horribly inaccurate.

It was that mind-numbingly boring.

Fixed for accuracy.

Yes, really. It's a damn shame it got such a limited release.

Wonderful acting -- particularly from Pitt, Casey Affleck and Sam Rockwell -- fucking gorgeous cinematography, a great score, and a top-notch story to boot.

I know some folks find it slow, but I thought it was gripping.

I don't think it was necessarily so much that it was slow as that it had some select slow parts and was looooong.

But, let me tell you, I will never bitch about a movie being long after sitting through My Sassy Girl in one sitting. I don't even know why I watched it, I'm neither a fan of Korean cinema all that much (ffs, EVERYTHING DOES NOT NEED TO BE SAD) nor do I like sappy comedy-romance. *shrug* I think it simply became a matter of principle and that movie wasn't going to win!

Yes, really. It's a damn shame it got such a limited release.

Wonderful acting -- particularly from Pitt, Casey Affleck and Sam Rockwell -- fucking gorgeous cinematography, a great score, and a top-notch story to boot.

I know some folks find it slow, but I thought it was gripping.

Slow is right, and while the cinematography was good, they could have probably cut about 40 fucking minutes from the film and still put in a few frames of all the LOOOONG cuts of some snowy field that they put into that movie...

...the score was meh. Rockwell was good, Afflecks character wanted to make me punch him in the face, which considering the role is good acting, but distracted me from the rest of the film, which I didn't much care for anyways because James was a fucking twat.

But then I don't much care for westerns. :tongue:

But then I don't much care for westerns. :tongue:
Shame, as there's been a spate of great non-standard westerns in the last couple of years.

Also: Deadwood.

Its safe to say I agree with almost every name mentioned in this thread.

Admittedly, part of it is personal bias. I'm a Minnesotan, and I was pretty offended by the film's portrayal of Minnesotans. For the record, we do not sound anything like the people in that movie did. We do not have Scandinavian accents; not that there's anything wrong with said accents, but it's horribly inaccurate.
You need to travel more.

I'm Minnesotan, too, and the accent that was used in Fargo is one that you WILL hear in some regions of the state. Head up north and westish, and you will definitely find it in the sticks.

Now, most Minnesotans will only have a little hint of that accent lurking around their vowel sounds. If you spend your time only in the Metro area around the Twin Cities then you're not likely to encounter anything as extreme as what was heard in Fargo.

When I lived in Minnesota (age 0-18), I didn't even hear the accent on anybody. Now that I've been living elsewhere for a number of years, I can hear the hints of Scandahoovian when I go back home for visits.

Thing is, in interviews and such he really has never come off as arrogant or smug. Most directors and actors who meet him also say he's fairly down to earth. For whatever reason, though, when he puts on his "acting face" it's always the face of a complete douchebag.

He's a Red Sox fan, of course he's a douchebag. :p

He's a Red Sox fan, of course he's a douchebag. :p

Die.






;)

The Shawshank Redemption mean anything to you?

Like Mystic River, that was in spite of him, not because of him.