The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
brendan fraser: george of the jungle, then mummy (1+2) now he is "bigger" in hollywood would he consider george of the jungle 2. because hollywood stars don't want to be type cast into their roles, look at george clooney dumping the role of batman because he did not want to be type cast now he is in films like 3 kings, perfect storm.
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: