Film: The Butterfly Effect

[randycaver]

it's getting HORRIBLE reviews! LOL

What a surprise. C'mon Ashton, get fuckin real.

 

[bong420tripper]

Who would honestly put their faith and money in Ashton Kutcher for a serious acting role? Honestly people. Next thing you know Carrot Top will be doing serious roles.

 

[BA]

Some of you people act as if actors are totally incapable of acting in 2 different modes; funny and "serious." Just because Ashton did the Punk'd show or 'Dude Where's My Car' doesn't disqualify him from future quality roles. His role in those movies was specific, and he filled them.

That's like saying because Tom Hanks made such shitty movies as Volunteers, Splash, and The Man With One Red Shoe he is completely inept to churn out such blockbusters as Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, and Castaway. 8( 8(

Not every actor can claim 100% success 100% of the time, that is to say that not every movie they star in will be a huge, mega-blockbuster flick. But that certainly doesn't exclude them from inproving for the future roles.

I think this movie looks very interesting, and I will be seeing it soon.

 

[bong420tripper]

The last I checked it was allowable for us to have our own opinions regarding Ashton Kutcher's acting ability. Furthermore, many actors are totally incapable of acting in two different modes.

For instance, I'll name two of my favorite actors. The comedy team of Chris Farley and David Spade has provided me with endless hours of entertainment thus far in my life, but you know what? They sure as shit could never succeed as serious actors.

 

[BA]

They sure as shit could never succeed as serious actors.

Well, why not? Are they above playing a lead role in a drama, or below that position?
Obviously the split acting job CAN be done, as I mentioned before about Tom Hanks. There are various others who do it quite well, too. But to say an actor is completely unable to perform in a serious manner when a movie calls for that role is not correct.

 

[bong420tripper]

Originally posted by BlueAdonis
But to say an actor is completely unable to perform in a serious manner when a movie calls for that role is not correct.

Just because you are an "actor" doesn't mean you have special powers enabling you to flawlessly perform any particular type of acting role. They may able to act in that movie, per se, but I can think of several actors who are slightly type casted that really couldn't pull off acting in a different kind of movie, such as a serious one. If they did pull it off, it would be rather sub par, and be scorned by the critics. I don't understand how you can deny that.

 

[lostpunk5545]

This looks interesting even if it does have Ashton Kutcher in it...

 

[randycaver]

Yeah, because you can totally compare Tom Hanks and Ashton Kutcher. Ashton Kutcher acts in movies that call for him to be a jackass, generally. I don't think he is a great actor, and thus, seeing him in any dramatic role is more comedic than seeing him in an ACTUAL comedy.

Maybe BA has a crush.

 

[TiberCross]

^^where have you been? i've missed the controversy that follow you everywhere you go.

 

[randycaver]

what are you talking about?

this isn't the lounge.

 

[bong420tripper]

randycaver

stop harassing her guys, or you'll have to answer to me!

 

[alasdairm]

^ i agree with BA.

many actors have tried roles which challenge them and, to the surprise of many people, have delivered wonderful performances

adam sandler in 'punch drunk love' is one obvious example.

just because somebody is a lunk who has, to date, yet to deliver a decent performamce, doesn't mean they never will...

alasdair

 

[TiberCross]

what are you talking about?

excuse me, i meant that as a nice hello.

stop harassing her guys, or you'll have to answer to me!

i'm going to pretend i think your joking.

 

[randycaver]

^ i agree with BA.

many actors have tried roles which challenge them and, to the surprise of many people, have delivered wonderful performances

adam sandler in 'punch drunk love' is one obvious example.

just because somebody is a lunk who has, to date, yet to deliver a decent performamce, doesn't mean they never will...

alasdair

this is true, but in this case, Ashton HASNT.


TiberCross: I was asking you what you were talking about in terms of controversy. And of course, what does it turn into??

 

[randycaver]

BA: Blockbuster movie doesn't mean it was a good movie.

Titanic? LOL. Not a good movie, but... look at how much money it made.

 

[BA]

I wasn't comparing Tom Hanks and Ashton, where did you get that from? I used Tom Hanks's name as an example of a person who can play a split-role, to illustrate that is CAN and (is) capable of being done.

Jim Carey is another actor who can completely transform his character into just about any role that he plays.

 

[randycaver]

LOL yeah, if you think Jim Carrey is a good actor at all, which I don't. I could never stand physical humor


You may not be comparing them, but I just don't think Tom Hanks is an accurate example to demonstrate your point. I don't see the split-role thing.

let's see.. who's funny and can be serious? David Duchovny... he's done it.... but he's really only in TV. This is a tough one.

 

[bong420tripper]

^ I don't see how you can call Jim Carrey a bad actor. He is the funniest man alive, hands down.

Anyway, to alasdairm and BA, what I'm trying to argue here is that many actors cannot make that transitition. Not it seemed to me that BA was pretty much saying every actor can act in several different ways, to suit whatever movie it is that he is starring in. I think that is totally bogus. Perhaps some, even a good percentage, of actors can do that, but surely not all of them. There are some actors out there who are just not that good and to deny that fact is to be pretty damned ignorant.

Would you also assert that Chero O'teri or Molly Shannon could turn their small success in comedic roles into a success in a dramatic film? This is what it seems that you are saying. Perhaps some people can do it guys, but certainly not all. I really don't think Ashton Kutcher falls into this group of those who can, but I guess we shall have to wait and see.

 

[randycaver]

I simply don't like physical humor. Do you see now, how I don't appreciate his comedy?

 

[alasdairm]

Anyway, to alasdairm and BA, what I'm trying to argue here is that many actors cannot make that transitition. Not it seemed to me that BA was pretty much saying every actor can act in several different ways, to suit whatever movie it is that he is starring in. I think that is totally bogus. Perhaps some, even a good percentage, of actors can do that, but surely not all of them. There are some actors out there who are just not that good and to deny that fact is to be pretty damned ignorant.

i don't think i said that at all. i don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth and insinuating that i'm ignorant.

Would you also assert that Chero O'teri or Molly Shannon could turn their small success in comedic roles into a success in a dramatic film? This is what it seems that you are saying.

i don't see why not. they have not done it yet but to assume they can't do it seems to me to be as silly a position as assuming all actors can do it (which i don't think anybody here is actually arguing).

Perhaps some people can do it guys, but certainly not all. I really don't think Ashton Kutcher falls into this group of those who can, but I guess we shall have to wait and see.

my point exactly - some people in this thread have made their minds up before actually seeing the movie. as such, they've concluded that aston kuchner is incapable of delivering anything beyond the level of performance he has given to date.

i guess i'm simply inviting people to keep an open mind and be open to the possibility of his finding depth in his acting of which people don't think he's capable. i guess some people are unwilling to do that. good for them! that's art for you.

alasdair