L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
posner said:
Here, in my opinion, is the crux of where we differ.
Because TO ME, the quality of the acting places a close second (behind only the quality of the dialogue) among the most important facets of a movie.
While a phenomenal plot (The Usual Suspects, Godfather, Godfather, Part II);
An especially poignant well-presented feel-good movie relating to the human condition (Schindler's List, Shawshank, Good Will Hunting); or
A great concept (The Graduate, Closer, 25th Hour)
. . . can seriously elevate the level of a film for me, in my opinion, such great concepts/plots/poignancy appear in one or two movies released per year AT MOST, so TO ME, the likely quality of the acting is of extreme importance to me with respect to my decision as to whether or not I'll decide to watch a movie.
I'm not saying that I'm unwilling to watch a movie simply because it is littered with newcomers or so-so actors.
But I *am* saying that I will watch virtually any movie that Spacey or Norton is in, for the simple reason that I can be fairly certain that their acting alone will be, to me, worth the price of admission (and as to why anyone living in a first-world country would value a movie's ten dollar ticket price above the two-to-three hour time investment he's about to make is beyond me - but that's a whole other thread altogether).
And while avoiding Roberts and Bullock admittedly would have robbed me of having had the opportunity to watch (and rewatch) both Closer and Crash, I feel that by setting my default setting on Roberts and Bullock movies to "Don't see this movie unless there is suficient evidence to rebut the presumption that a movie with Roberts or Bullock in it, including the fact that it will be acted in part by Roberts or Bullock," has saved me a whole lot of two-to-three hours sessions in which I can instead watch an indy-type no-name film that MIGHT end up being great (like, Reservoir Dogs, Swingers or Fresh) for the first time or Pulp Fiction for the eighty-fourth time.
***
