The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That's right. I'll include actresses too. There seems to be a misconception among Hollywood film directors that a famous actor is famous because he has good acting skill. Equally, good actors are disregarded, and an actor is not allowed to be good by magazines if he looks good, because thats obviosuly why people go to see his films.
Now why I am I saying this? well, because I love films and it really annoys me when quality actors get slated, and rubbish or mediocre actors get praised. Lets have some examples of this outrage.
Russell Crowe : LA Confidental was better than Gladiator, no doubt about it, but Gladiator made him universally acclaimed. Barry Norman, our best film critic, hailed him as 'the first superstar of the 21st century'. Then comes Proof of Life. All the expectation is on it. Not because of Crowe's acxting credentials. Oh no, we can't judge a film on that. No, its the affair with Meg Ryan that we judge the film on. The film was a flop. Now I read in last weeks Radio Times that Barry Norman has reversed his decision of good old Russell. I'm not forced to ask why? All actors have a flop film. Crowe is an Oscar-winner, for crying out loud! He is a pedigree actor. One film doesn't mean he suddenly loses his talent. Gah, film critics.
Next, we have Brad Pitt : Film critics again claim his films are popular because he's a pretty-boy. No, thats Leonardo DiCaprio. Pitt is a decent actor. People didn't go to films such as Seven,Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club and Snatch for looks, they go for his acting qualities. Twelve Monkeys and Fight Club are intrical. They are surreal films that need a keen mind to act in and a keen mind to understand. Pitt can't just bluff his way through them on looks alone. He needs, and has, acting quality. Just because he also has looks doesn't mean he can be dismissed as a actor like DiCaprio.
Jason Lee: Sorry, my Kevin Smith bias comes through here, but I am still a big advocate of Lee's talents. The guys just had his mainstream breakthrough, in Heartbreakers. And he gets to kiss Jennifer Love-Hewitt. Can't be all bad. So why am I going on? Simple. He's been ignored in favour of less funny actors for ages. People like Mike Myers and Chris Tucker are funny, but not as talented as this guy. He deserved his breakthrough much earlier, and its ironic he gets it in a romantic drama film, not a comedy. But I'd say this shows his acting quality over a wide spectrum. Go Banky.
There we go. I've had my little rant. There's plenty of actors who deserve more recognition : Dougray Scott, Gabriel Byrne, Steve Buscemi and so on. Equally, some really famous guys aren't as deserving as they should be : Cuba Gooding Jr, Jeff Goldblum, Leonardo DiCaprio. I can give many more examples.
So, what I say is that we shouldn't judge a film by the reputation of the actors and what they look like. If you are a fan of films, you'll already know this, and know which actors are deserving of their fame. Next time you see a film by one of the mentioned actors, think of them purely as actors. Russell Crowe isn't Maximus or Bud anymore. He's whoever he's playing. Brad Pitt isn't the high profile husband of Jennifer Aniston, he's an actor. Plain and simple.
Stryke.
Now why I am I saying this? well, because I love films and it really annoys me when quality actors get slated, and rubbish or mediocre actors get praised. Lets have some examples of this outrage.
Russell Crowe : LA Confidental was better than Gladiator, no doubt about it, but Gladiator made him universally acclaimed. Barry Norman, our best film critic, hailed him as 'the first superstar of the 21st century'. Then comes Proof of Life. All the expectation is on it. Not because of Crowe's acxting credentials. Oh no, we can't judge a film on that. No, its the affair with Meg Ryan that we judge the film on. The film was a flop. Now I read in last weeks Radio Times that Barry Norman has reversed his decision of good old Russell. I'm not forced to ask why? All actors have a flop film. Crowe is an Oscar-winner, for crying out loud! He is a pedigree actor. One film doesn't mean he suddenly loses his talent. Gah, film critics.
Next, we have Brad Pitt : Film critics again claim his films are popular because he's a pretty-boy. No, thats Leonardo DiCaprio. Pitt is a decent actor. People didn't go to films such as Seven,Twelve Monkeys, Fight Club and Snatch for looks, they go for his acting qualities. Twelve Monkeys and Fight Club are intrical. They are surreal films that need a keen mind to act in and a keen mind to understand. Pitt can't just bluff his way through them on looks alone. He needs, and has, acting quality. Just because he also has looks doesn't mean he can be dismissed as a actor like DiCaprio.
Jason Lee: Sorry, my Kevin Smith bias comes through here, but I am still a big advocate of Lee's talents. The guys just had his mainstream breakthrough, in Heartbreakers. And he gets to kiss Jennifer Love-Hewitt. Can't be all bad. So why am I going on? Simple. He's been ignored in favour of less funny actors for ages. People like Mike Myers and Chris Tucker are funny, but not as talented as this guy. He deserved his breakthrough much earlier, and its ironic he gets it in a romantic drama film, not a comedy. But I'd say this shows his acting quality over a wide spectrum. Go Banky.
There we go. I've had my little rant. There's plenty of actors who deserve more recognition : Dougray Scott, Gabriel Byrne, Steve Buscemi and so on. Equally, some really famous guys aren't as deserving as they should be : Cuba Gooding Jr, Jeff Goldblum, Leonardo DiCaprio. I can give many more examples.
So, what I say is that we shouldn't judge a film by the reputation of the actors and what they look like. If you are a fan of films, you'll already know this, and know which actors are deserving of their fame. Next time you see a film by one of the mentioned actors, think of them purely as actors. Russell Crowe isn't Maximus or Bud anymore. He's whoever he's playing. Brad Pitt isn't the high profile husband of Jennifer Aniston, he's an actor. Plain and simple.
Stryke.
Page:
Fine. Sean Connery in Entrapment - bad script, he still manages to shine.
I've always seen Michael Douglas as a talented actor. Watch him in 'Falling Down'. He is brilliant in that.
He won an oscar for Wall Street as Gecko didn't he?
He won an oscar for Wall Street as Gecko didn't he?
Recently I have come to see Michael Douglas as a talented actor...
Look at two films. As Gordon Gecko he makes an incredibly powerful, driven speech to a annual general meeting, personifying the word enigmatic. Dazzling acting. As the drugs tzar in Traffic he makes another speech in which e starts confidently then falters and gives up. Again brilliant acting. I don't know why these two moments stick in my mind but they have turned that man into a screen legend in my eyes.
Oh, and he must be able to act like a man half his age as well... ho ho ho...
Look at two films. As Gordon Gecko he makes an incredibly powerful, driven speech to a annual general meeting, personifying the word enigmatic. Dazzling acting. As the drugs tzar in Traffic he makes another speech in which e starts confidently then falters and gives up. Again brilliant acting. I don't know why these two moments stick in my mind but they have turned that man into a screen legend in my eyes.
Oh, and he must be able to act like a man half his age as well... ho ho ho...
I'd disagree. I bad actor can muck up a good script, but a bad script can't ruin a good actor. If they're talented, it's obvious.
The problem is that the actor is usually only as good as their material. If they've been given a c**p script, which is then poorly directed and edited it doesn't really matter how good they are. "You can't polish a t**d" as my dear old apple cheeked Grandma would say.
I've just finished reading a brilliant book called "Adventures in the Screen Trade" by William Goldman. He's a scriptwriter who's credits include "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", "Marathon Man" and a "Bridge too far". Quite a roll call.
He writes about his experiences working on these movies and time and time again he emphesises its a collaborative experience. The making of a movie is like assembling some huge jigsaw. Simply looking at credits lets you know there is generally a 100+ people working on a movie.
A good actor can be the make or break of a competent movie but there is no actor who can turn a turkey into something more palatable. Yes they can still give a good performance of their badly written script but they cannot redeem the entire poorly concieved and badly executed venture.
The book also has some hilarious anecdotes of the excesses of actors ego's and how actors have their genre and time.
Personally I think the litmus test is if an actor can act across genres. If they can perform a role that is something other than a play on themselves e.g. Michael Caine is just Michael Caine, he doesn't act he just is. He's an icon or a celebrity not an actor.
Anyway I'd recommend a read of the book. It gives a brilliant overview of the whole film making process. It offers no magic formula's as to why some movies work and others don't. Movie making seems to be some akin to alchemy. You think there should be some recipe for making gold, you get all the constituent parts and it looks like it should shine but you get some clunking heap of lead instead.(God how far deep can I mine the alchemy scene). Problem is people think the actor/star is the magic ingredient, they aren't. They are part of the process not the total of it.
I've just finished reading a brilliant book called "Adventures in the Screen Trade" by William Goldman. He's a scriptwriter who's credits include "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", "Marathon Man" and a "Bridge too far". Quite a roll call.
He writes about his experiences working on these movies and time and time again he emphesises its a collaborative experience. The making of a movie is like assembling some huge jigsaw. Simply looking at credits lets you know there is generally a 100+ people working on a movie.
A good actor can be the make or break of a competent movie but there is no actor who can turn a turkey into something more palatable. Yes they can still give a good performance of their badly written script but they cannot redeem the entire poorly concieved and badly executed venture.
The book also has some hilarious anecdotes of the excesses of actors ego's and how actors have their genre and time.
Personally I think the litmus test is if an actor can act across genres. If they can perform a role that is something other than a play on themselves e.g. Michael Caine is just Michael Caine, he doesn't act he just is. He's an icon or a celebrity not an actor.
Anyway I'd recommend a read of the book. It gives a brilliant overview of the whole film making process. It offers no magic formula's as to why some movies work and others don't. Movie making seems to be some akin to alchemy. You think there should be some recipe for making gold, you get all the constituent parts and it looks like it should shine but you get some clunking heap of lead instead.(God how far deep can I mine the alchemy scene). Problem is people think the actor/star is the magic ingredient, they aren't. They are part of the process not the total of it.
Hey hey, I never said Norton was bad simply because of The Score. I havn't even seen it. All I said was that the film didn't look too promising. Which is the truth. It doesn't look to promising, for me that is. I'm not expecting too much from it. However, I will still go see it simply because of Norton and De Niro.
Cuba Gooding Jnr - Jerry Maguire. There you go. He was excellent in that. Did he win an oscar for it? He might have done, I can't remember.
And I'd also say that Haley Joel Osment is a Hollywood hope for the future. Problem is, he's so young, he'll probably die of drug abuse very soon. That's what my mate said the other day as well. Hope he doesn't though.
:)
Cuba Gooding Jnr - Jerry Maguire. There you go. He was excellent in that. Did he win an oscar for it? He might have done, I can't remember.
And I'd also say that Haley Joel Osment is a Hollywood hope for the future. Problem is, he's so young, he'll probably die of drug abuse very soon. That's what my mate said the other day as well. Hope he doesn't though.
:)
Where have you got evidence for Cuba Gooding Jnr being a good actor? I mean, I've only seen a few of his films, but they were rubbish. Men of Honour, for example. He really disappointed in that film. Robert De Niro outshone him, and that wasn't really saying much. He hasn't had a REALLY good film since Heat.
And Dougray Scott? I suggest you go see Enigma. He's good in that.
Ed Norton I agree with you. He's widely regarded as 'the hope of the future' in Hollywood. I haven't been to see The Score, but I gather he's not impressive in that. Doesn't mean he's not good, as my point about Russell Crowe states.
And Dougray Scott? I suggest you go see Enigma. He's good in that.
Ed Norton I agree with you. He's widely regarded as 'the hope of the future' in Hollywood. I haven't been to see The Score, but I gather he's not impressive in that. Doesn't mean he's not good, as my point about Russell Crowe states.
I think Cuba Gooding Jnr is a good actor.
I think Gabriel Byrne deserves more fame though, like you said.
Dougray Scott however. Hmmmmm, he has his moments, and there are times where he is a very good actor. But there are also times where his choice of how to act his scene is, shall we say, questionable.
Another person, who has not had the fame he deserves. Ed Norton. His performance in American History X was fantastic. He was also really good in Fight Club and Primal Fear but he's not been in many big movies. In fact, he's not been in many movies at all. He's in the upcoming, The Score but that doesn't look too promising.
I think Gabriel Byrne deserves more fame though, like you said.
Dougray Scott however. Hmmmmm, he has his moments, and there are times where he is a very good actor. But there are also times where his choice of how to act his scene is, shall we say, questionable.
Another person, who has not had the fame he deserves. Ed Norton. His performance in American History X was fantastic. He was also really good in Fight Club and Primal Fear but he's not been in many big movies. In fact, he's not been in many movies at all. He's in the upcoming, The Score but that doesn't look too promising.
Page: