films: Actors/Actresses you hated until "that" movie

[Tanuki_23]

ray changed jamie fox for me. who know he wasn't always a loud obnoxious twit?

i agree, although he seems to have resorted to his old ways as of late.

 

[posner]

it just wasn't my type of movie, regardless of how many "awards" it won.

I would also like to add how sad it is that you think someone should like a movie because others liked it.

it won best supporting actor! holy crap, I better go rent it right now. 8)

I also didn't like the movie. More importantly, however, is the remark that a movie that has been nominated for or won Oscars is a quality movie. The Academy Awards are a joke. There are tons of examples of movies that have won multiple Oscars that have been terrible. The awards are an industry wide circle jerk for the movies that bring in tons of cash.

 

[toepet]

i always thought of Leonardo Di Caprio as a pin up boy until i saw "This boys life" ( with De Niro as his alcoholic father). Good emotional performance there.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

I totally agreed with you until you mentioned Portman's fantastic??? acting in Closer. Were we watching the same movie? She was the worst thing about it; she can't act at all. Her dialogue was so stilted and uncomfortable (and not in an "it was supposed to" kind of way.)

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

I shall concede that she was perhaps somewhat miscast, as she is far more believable as a likeable tomboy than she is as a pole dancer.

That said, in my opinion, her handling of the crisp dialogue and the varying emotions was superb (especially for an early-twenties "movie star" in a serious role opposite three much more experienced, mature actors).

With the notable exception of Scarlett Johnasson, I think you'd be hard pressed to name a more talented "name" actress under the age of twenty-five.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

well, you seem really smart so I'll keep this short...

have you ever heard of an opinion, or personal taste? I have in fact watched Good Will Hunting, and in my opinion it sucked. it just wasn't my type of movie, regardless of how many "awards" it won.

I would also like to add how sad it is that you think someone should like a movie because others liked it.

it won best supporting actor! holy crap, I better go rent it right now. 8)

My apologies.

When I read . . .

I'm glad I gave him a chance, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm going to go watch Good Will Hunting now.

. . . in your earlier post, I (wrongly) assumed that you hadn't seen Good Will Hunting yet, and that you were unwilling to so much as give it a try based on the heavy influence of Affleck and Damon.

While I would be curious to hear your criticisms of Good Will Hunting, I do apologize for my acerbic post based on said erroneous assumption.

 

[posner]

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

I shall concede that she was perhaps somewhat miscast, as she is far more believable as a likeable tomboy than she is as a pole dancer.

That said, in my opinion, her handling of the crisp dialogue and the varying emotions was superb (especially for an early-twenties "movie star" in a serious role opposite three much more experienced, mature actors).

With the notable exception of Scarlett Johnasson, I think you'd be hard pressed to name a more talented "name" actress under the age of twenty-five.

eh...I don't know. We can disagree about whether we think her acting in that movie (or any other) was of a high quality. However, I can think of tons of movies with younger actors/actresses with far better performances and, I think, capabilities. I don't think it helps if you have to qualify whether they are a "name" actor because you aren't really saying that she was "good for a name actor" but rather that she was simply "good". Also, a "name" may mean something completely different depending on who you ask.

 

[McLaren]

While I would be curious to hear your criticisms of Good Will Hunting, I do apologize for my acerbic post based on said erroneous assumption.

hey, it's all good. my complaint was that i didn't see the relevance of an opinion of someone whom i have never met, never heard of, nor do i know anything about there background to understand where they derive their criticism. i trust a good friend's opinion about a movie, before a critic or awards ceremony.

i have no criticisms of Good Will Hunting. like i said before, it's just not my kinda movie. i like sci-fi, comedies, and horror. if it doesn't fit into those categories, it's hard for me to stay interested. if all the characters are learning lessons on life, love, happiness, how to cope with loss, i don't want to hear it.

now if Good Will Hunting was shot with Saturn's rings in the background, with a masked murderer cracking jewish jokes while he hacks away at bodies, i may have been interested.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

i have no criticisms of Good Will Hunting. like i said before, it's just not my kinda movie. i like sci-fi, comedies, and horror. if it doesn't fit into those categories, it's hard for me to stay interested. if all the characters are learning lessons on life, love, happiness, how to cope with loss, i don't want to hear it.

now if Good Will Hunting was shot with Saturn's rings in the background, with a masked murderer cracking jewish jokes while he hacks away at bodies, i may have been interested.

Fair enough.

On a similar note, I must admit that 99 percent of all the movies I have ever enjoyed thoroughly have been either dramas, comedies, mysteries, films noir, or some hybrid of those genres.

Even though nine of my ten best friends would probably swear that The Matrix, Lord Of The Rings and Alien are among the greatest movies of all time, I would sooner spend two hours plucking my asshole hair than watching any one of them.

Admittedly, I do enjoy plucking my asshole hair.

Peace,

LL

 

[L O V E L I F E]

However, I can think of tons of movies with younger actors/actresses with far better performances and, I think, capabilities.

I don't think it helps if you have to qualify whether they are a "name" actor because you aren't really saying that she was "good for a name actor" but rather that she was simply "good".

Also, a "name" may mean something completely different depending on who you ask.

I see your point, but I think that my point is valid as well.

Lots of factors go into making someone a "name" actor:

Looks, likeability, connections, how early they started, randomness, etc.

And in my opinion, it is not all too often that someone possesses virtually all of those aforementioned qualities and also happen to be exceptionally talented actors, to boot.

On the female side, Johansson, Jolie, Theron and Portman come to mind from the past ten or so years.

I suppose we can agree to disagree as to degree of Portman's talent, but I trust that you might be inclined to agree that most of the other "name" actresses whose "comings out" in their 20's have tended to be fair-to-middling actors at best.

Which, to me, is relevant, because "name" actors tend to get first choice of premier roles, and thus, we are often disuaded from watching what would otherwise have been very watchable movies simply because Julia Roberts or Sandra Bullock is listed on the marquee.

 

[posner]

Well, I personally (although I know others do) don't see movies based on the actors or actresses in them.

And when you say "name" I think that means someone the mainstream public would have heard of. I think your factors are more relevant to how you think they became a "name" actor/actress.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other here, I'm not concerned with how someone became a "name" actor/actress, but rather whether or not that actually matters.

 

[McLaren]

Admittedly, I do enjoy plucking my asshole hair.

haha, now that's hot!

 

[mariacallas]

Russel Crowe until I saw him in the Gladiator.

 

[bingey]

I always thought he was such an arrogant coke sniffing bastard


till his real personality showed through in perfet synchrony with his acting


i was blown away so dramatic , so emotional


Smeagol g. great guy really

 

[stillbeing]

I hated allll three stars in THE THREE KINGS

walberg, ice cube, george clooney

, then liked them ,

\ but never liked 'em in anything after the THREE KINGS !

 

[L O V E L I F E]

"Long-winded post on a minute difference of opinion on an obscure issue, Take One!"

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other here, I'm not concerned with how someone became a "name" actor/actress, but rather whether or not that actually matters.

I don't think that either one of us is misunderstanding the other.

Rather, I simply think that we choose look at this issue in two different ways.

I agree with you that the issue of whether or not a particluar actor or actress is a "name" actor or actress is not particularly important in the big scheme of things.

Here's where I believe we differ:

Sometimes, I see a preview or read a review or hear a conversation about a new movie, and based upon my expectations of how much utility I expect to gain from watching said movie (which, in turn, are based upon some combination of how much I like the actors, how much I like the director's other films, how much I am intrigued by the subject matter and by the concept, how good the dialogue is likely to be, and how well it has been reviewed by those people whose opinions I value), I sometimes make the choice to NOT watch a movie I would otherwise watch because I know that Sandra Bullock (or Jim Carrey, or whomever) is listed as its star.

While I shall admit that I'm happy I made an exception for Crash (and I'm happy I made said exception because . . .

(a) as it turned out, in a two hour movie with thirty-seven main characters, Bullock's role was miniscule; and

(b) admittedly, her acting in Crash wasn't nearly as torturous to watch as her previous "work") . . .

. . . the fact remains that while there are certainly many low-budget movies that are well-worth watching (and for which this post is, therefore, not applicable), there are also a fair number of big-budget, certain-to-be-lauded films (e.g., Godfather, Schindler's List, Apocalypse Now, The Graduate) that disuade many potential viewers (at least when the movie is initially released) for the precise reason that a rather large minority of the film's potential viewers have a strong distate for one of its "name" stars.

To me, it simply seems that I am sometimes part of this rather large minority who is sometimes affected by whether or not someone is a "name" actor, and, from my interpretation of your posts, you tend not to be.

 

[posner]

Not necessarily. I, like you, was surprised with Julia Roberts in Closer. I tended to think she was a rather poor actress, but I thought she did a great job in that movie.

My ultimate point is that a person shouldn't watch or refuse to watch a movie based on who is in it because, as this thread points out, the "names" billed in the roles rarely tell you much about the movie and more often than not will lead you astray...but really that is a digression from the first point we discussed.

You were saying that Natalie Portman is a talented "name" actress. However, you were then saying that most "name" actresses/actors in her age group are crap, which doesn't really say much for her. I guess the relevance, to you, is that so many people decide whether or not they are going to see something based on whether these people are in it---which I guess doesn't really say much for those people.

It is true that I tend to stay away from movies with, say, Sandra Bullock in them. (Although, per your point, this can be attributed to past viewing aka seeing her movies years ago, reviews, word of mouth). But I think that, really, who is in it should be at the bottom of the "importance" list if for no other reason than people presumably would not see movies without any "name" actors/actresses in them, which I think would be unfortunate.

Look at movies like "Bring it on" or "Saved". They were great. Would you have expected it from the cast? (rhetorical)

 

[The Liberal Media]

hated hugh grant in everything until i saw " about a boy" actually i still hate him now, but its one of my fave books and the adaptation was great. so i am willing to tolerate him for 95 mins whenever i rewatch this,and rereading the book now, its actually hard to imagine "will" being anyone else but hugh grant.

 

[stillbeing]

also hated hugh in EVERYthing till about a boy which blew my mind and HE was fine (not great but not bad ) in it and great unique story. guess i should read th book 2.

 

[tribal girl]

I decided I didn't like Reese Witherspoon (even tho I'd never seen any of her films) untill I saw her in Freeway. I also wasn't very keen on Judy Garland untill I saw Meet Me In St. Louis.

 

[brothermarcus]

hrrm... I didn't like Billy Crudup before The Hi-Lo country, granted the quality of parts he lands now is dramatically better than before that film.

I liked Nick Cage for a brief shining moment in Leaving Las Vegas... I've hated him in every other role he's ever played, even when he's in movies I really like (matchstick men- the flick where alison lohman really knocked my socks off).

didn't like Tim Robbins until Hudsucker Proxy, then Shawshank definitely kept him on my nice list.

I didn't think I could like Jim Carrey until Man on the Moon... since then he's hit-or-miss, but I really liked his work in Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, and Lemony Snicket's.

I didn't think much of Adrien Brody until the Pianist.

Hilary Swank definately changed my opinion (she was the girl that killed the karate kid franchise) by taking on some heavyduty roles, and I think she has more to offer down the road.

Gattaca really changed my mind about Uma Thurman, before then she always seemed to be an "object" in movies to me... definitely not the case in Kill Bill.

Jeff Bridges also had a single moment as "the dude" that I'm not sure he can ever bring back for me... he fits in too well with the generic hollywood serious-man roles, but the dude abides.