I dont know what it is but when I watch a movie with Clive Owen in it, I dont see the character he is supposed to play but always Clive Owen. Same shit is happening with Brat Pitt, George Clooney and loads of other mofos. I guess Id wanna see some new faces in major films, but I guess that's quite impossible to ask for since actors with big names very often make the movie (attract the cinema goers). Still, it sucks. It's like that thing with Ross, no matter how hard David Schwimmer tries, you just always see Ross. Which is kinda weird because it doesnt support my previously expressed concern. I dont know, Im just a bit sick of shit movies with shit actors who always look and act the same. Boring crap, thats what I call that.
Problem with certain actors
- Thread starter Mihajlovic
- Start date
If a movie features Nicholas Cage, then you know it's gonna be shit. A shit actor for shit films.
Well i guess its because of how much they are in the media for other things. You're always exposed to brad pitt as opposed to his characters so you start seeing him as brad pitt, not colonel fancy pants or whoever.
In the same way you always new Davd Schwimmer as Ross and saw him possibly weeknight after weeknight as Ross, so you say hey look its Ross, not hey look its David.
Agree with the OP, that's why all the good movies nowdays are the ones with actors you don't recognise or immediately associate with another movie/character. Some actors/actresses are a victim of their own success in this regard.
Typecasting doesn't help either.
Typecasting doesn't help either.
spot on cant stand him
Don't know what's happened to him nowadays but he was decent back in the 90s.
David Caruso
end of thread
end of thread
Yeah .. but that didn't stop the great actors did it? You didn't see Marlon Brando in The Godfather .. he was Don Vito Corleone. Ditto with Clint Eastwood, Bogart, DeNiro etc. These days though with the excessive hype and non-stop celebrity coverage its easy to see what you mean. Brad Pitt is a decent enough actor to get involved in his role though ... I thought he was great in The Assasination of Jesse James ... was completely in character.
I can't believe that in a topic about shit actors always acting the same no-one has mentioned the God of them all. Ben fecking monkey face Stiller.
I have much more hate for his big nosed compadre, Owen Wilson.
Zoolander is my idea of hell.
These days De Niro and Al Pacino are pretty firmly in the territory of what Mihajlovic is talking about, phoning it in in every performance and not getting into character at all.
Agreed. I was talking of them in their prime in the 70's and 80's. You have to see Righteous Kill or 88 minutes, its almost exactly the point that the OP was trying to make.
Damn, I came soo close.
I refuse to watch anything that has Will Ferrell in it. I despise him.
You are right about this. If you see their faces on the screen every single day and if they look, talk, walk, smile exactly the same in the next movie you see, then there's hardly any identification with the film character. This is why I enjoy movies where those actors look at least a little bit different then in real life, for example Will Smith was watchable in Pursuit of Happyness because he didnt totally look like Will Smith in the movie. Hancock, however, is just Will Smith trying to act funny.
I think most of these popular actors will be remembered for their excentric roles but this is also because they're given a chance 'not to look and be like themselves' for once. Tom Cruise in 4th of July, Brad Pitt in Kalifornia, De Niro in loads of stuff before he went all gay, Christian Bale in Psycho, Nicholas Cage in Wild at Heart, etc.
I think you can make the effort to forget about that and just believe the movie. I had the same problem as you for a while, but I realized that, for example, when you go to the theatre, you have no problem sticking to the action, although you know perfectly that the actors are faking it. You just make that extra effort to get involved in the story. It should work the same in cinema if you apply the same logic.
That's because Clive Owen is a terrible actor.
Brad Pitt is a decent but very limited actor. He was great in things like "Thelma and Louise", where he's basically playing a good-looking bloke. "Seven" was waaaay beyond his abilities, and I didn't even watch Troy because the notion of him playing Achilles was just ridiculous.
Clooney, on the other hand, is an excellent actor, but I know what you mean, for some reason he's always Clooney.
I think there are three types of film actor - Chameleons, Stars and Vessels.
Chameleons are character actors. They actually act, in the sense of impersonate different people. They may not have the range to play any part, but they can play many. Actors like Tim Robbins, Dustin Hoffman, John Tarturro, Robert Downey Junior, fit into this mould.
Stars are always basically themselves. The films work around their basic character. You go and see a John Wayne film for John Wayne, not some amazing new creation played by John Wayne. Same with Marlon Brando, Clint Eastwood, Jack Nicholson. It doesn't make you less of an actor - there's never been a better actor than Marlon Brando - it just means there's something about your personality and physicality that's inescapable.
There are less of these guys than there used to be - what's happened to the great heroic actors? I think Harrison Ford is one of these: even though on the surface Han Solo is a very different character from the ones in "Witness" or "The Fugitive" or "Presumed Innocent" (all of which are quite similar), there's a certain Harrison Fordness about all of them. Same goes for Russell Crowe, despite the fact that he thinks he's a great character actor, and (in his limited way) Arnie.
Vessels are actors like Tom Cruise. They have a kind of emptiness, into which the role of the hero can be poured. It's always Tom Cruise there, but you have no real conception of who Tom Cruise is in the way you do with Clint Eastwood. He doesn't embody any particular values, he's mainly constituted by his physical image and the (usually heroic) role of the character. The exception is "Rain Man", where Cruise puts in a genuinely excellent and particular, rather than typical, performance. Maybe that character is quite like who he really is?
Maybe Clooney's problem is that he should be a Star, but because he's a very good actor and has some political integrity, he wants to be a Chameleon. But whoever he's playing, he's always Clooney.
Clive Owen's got a similar problem, compounded by the fact that he's fecking shit.
Watch any actor enough and you will start seeing them play similar characters in every film. Of course you will, there is never been an actor who can change who they are 100%, there is always going to be bits of the real actor shining through. It's usually why they are cast for that particular film, the traits that the actor themselves embody are the same sort of traits and personality that the character in the film is supposed to have. Although often the producers get the casting very wrong.
Even if an actors character is a tough brooding hero in one film, and an evil mastermind in another, there are going to be similarities in both characters the actor portrays. Pacino and De Niro are regarded as two of the finest, yet they always play similar characters, be it a cop or a villain or a TV producer. The problem comes when you start comparing films with each other, it's best just to watch the film as a one off and not try to compare it with the actors past films.
Even if an actors character is a tough brooding hero in one film, and an evil mastermind in another, there are going to be similarities in both characters the actor portrays. Pacino and De Niro are regarded as two of the finest, yet they always play similar characters, be it a cop or a villain or a TV producer. The problem comes when you start comparing films with each other, it's best just to watch the film as a one off and not try to compare it with the actors past films.
Its like Radiohead vs Coldplay. Some actors try to experiment, play different roles, have artistic integrity and manage to pull it off. The others get into a comfort zone and try hard but always ending up playing the same old shit over and over again.
My main issue is actors who blatantly play the exact same role in every film and yet somehow get called superbly talented. Christopher Walken and Morgan Freeman, step forward please.
Edit: Having thought of them, I just entered their names in the IMDB joint lookup feature to see if they'd actually starred in any films together and they hadn't... until now!
Edit: Having thought of them, I just entered their names in the IMDB joint lookup feature to see if they'd actually starred in any films together and they hadn't... until now!
Eric Bana is the best example for me. For those who don't know, he was a successful comic in Australia for quite some time before he got into movies, even hosted his own short-lived comedy show if I remember correctly. Perhaps an Australian equivilant of Will Ferrell in many ways, although not so annoying.
Suddenly seeing him as a leading hollywood action man took some getting used to, that's for sure. I just kept expecting him to break out with some comic stuff. It wasn't until I saw Troy where I was finally able to start seeing him in a new light and taking his roles seriously.
Interestingly enough, I hear he might be appearing in a comedy movie soon. Will certainly be a new experience for the Americans
Suddenly seeing him as a leading hollywood action man took some getting used to, that's for sure. I just kept expecting him to break out with some comic stuff. It wasn't until I saw Troy where I was finally able to start seeing him in a new light and taking his roles seriously.
Interestingly enough, I hear he might be appearing in a comedy movie soon. Will certainly be a new experience for the Americans
Bana was awesome in 'Chopper.'
It really does seem that the so-called "best" actors are usually just playing a caricature of themselves, really. Samuel L. Jackson, Pacino, De Niro, Nicholson, the list goes on. I suspect they get lazy and tell their agents to only take certain roles.
That guy who played Godzilla has struggled for work since.
Is he really? He seems more like a smug bastard to me, with repetitive roles, until recent years where he's taken more humorous roles that i've only started to warm a bit to him. The early Clooney reminds me an awful lot of Michael Douglas, he would only go for juicy parts that fit his own smug persona. Tom Cruise is, IMO, on another level in terms of acting ability, one of the most intense actors in the 90s and still decent enough today (Valkyrie, War of the Worlds).
I consider the Nicholsons and the De Niro's as a different generation of actors, back in their days of their prime, people loved their image and their acting style so they just ran with it. Different style compared to what i consider some of the best actors of this generation, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Penn, and to some extent Christian Bale. Actors truly dedicated to their craft and versatile enough to immerse in a variety of roles.
Thats what happens when actors become movie stars.
Inglorious Basterds, now i know there is another thread on it already, but my point is that Brad Pitt, although good in it, is always going to be Brad Pitt.
Christoph Waltz on the other hand steals the show. Previously, most of his work has been on German TV. It could well be an Oscar winning performance, so in future roles, he may well be known as the German bloke from Inglorious Basterds.
Thats just the way it is.
Christoph Waltz on the other hand steals the show. Previously, most of his work has been on German TV. It could well be an Oscar winning performance, so in future roles, he may well be known as the German bloke from Inglorious Basterds.
Thats just the way it is.
Just like watching a porno then.
Put it to the back of your mind that shes faking it.
That was a brilliant movie. You're right about him in that role.
Tbf to Brad Pitt, he has actually put in some excellent and varied performances. His earlier roles, where he got noticed mainly for his looks, were good, but that's not all he's about at all.
Try watching "The Assassination of Jesse James", you can see the emotion and the age in the pained expressions and the sadness of the eyes. That was just a terrific performance. Then there's "12 Monkeys", which couldn't really be any further from that role, since he plays a fecking looney, but you have to say that he doesn't half throw himself into a role even if he can sometimes go over the top a bit.
"Fight Club", brilliant again, probably his second best performance behind "Jesse James". He's great again in "Babel". The only one that I don't rate that highly, and for some reason so many see it as his best work, is "Seven". Mainly because he over does it, especially in the scenes when he's supposed to be crying, which just seem extremely fake. Giving him credit though, he handles the last scene to absolute perfection. That whole scene is incredible, one of the greatest in cinematic history, and the main reason for that it the tension that builds up throughout it, much of which stems from his breakdown.
Like I say though, he does have a tendency to go a bit overboard, and he doesn't strike me as the most....... "natural" of actors. You look at Christian Bale, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Penn etc. and they all become that character with painstaking attention to detail and months of commitment to the role, but that never seems to show in the final cut. No matter how well Pitt does, and he's done a fantastic job at times, there's nearly always a part of you that can tell he's really having to give it his all. "Jesse James" being the exception.
EDIT: I even forgot to mention "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", where he's exceptional once again.
Try watching "The Assassination of Jesse James", you can see the emotion and the age in the pained expressions and the sadness of the eyes. That was just a terrific performance. Then there's "12 Monkeys", which couldn't really be any further from that role, since he plays a fecking looney, but you have to say that he doesn't half throw himself into a role even if he can sometimes go over the top a bit.
"Fight Club", brilliant again, probably his second best performance behind "Jesse James". He's great again in "Babel". The only one that I don't rate that highly, and for some reason so many see it as his best work, is "Seven". Mainly because he over does it, especially in the scenes when he's supposed to be crying, which just seem extremely fake. Giving him credit though, he handles the last scene to absolute perfection. That whole scene is incredible, one of the greatest in cinematic history, and the main reason for that it the tension that builds up throughout it, much of which stems from his breakdown.
Like I say though, he does have a tendency to go a bit overboard, and he doesn't strike me as the most....... "natural" of actors. You look at Christian Bale, Daniel Day-Lewis, Sean Penn etc. and they all become that character with painstaking attention to detail and months of commitment to the role, but that never seems to show in the final cut. No matter how well Pitt does, and he's done a fantastic job at times, there's nearly always a part of you that can tell he's really having to give it his all. "Jesse James" being the exception.
EDIT: I even forgot to mention "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", where he's exceptional once again.
12 Monkeys really was a quite stupendous movie. One of my favourites. I'm going to download it right now, cheers!
Good idea for a thread.
Theres something just not right about Tom Hanks. Always had a strong dislike for him. Clive Owen isnt a bad shout either.
Theres something just not right about Tom Hanks. Always had a strong dislike for him. Clive Owen isnt a bad shout either.
Children of Men was a great movie, though.
Good post, but I really wouldn't put Marlon Brando in the same category as John Wayne. He didn't play the same role over and over. His character in Last Tango in Paris is very different from the one in the Godfather which is different to the one in Mutiny on the Bounty and so on. I guess you could say that he brought a part of himself into each character like every actor does, but I really feel that he should go in your Chameleon category. He's the best actor of all time, I agree with you there.
John Travolta is the kiss of death for a movie
Samuel L 'muthafeckin' Jackson.
He SHOUTS and SWEARS loudly in a LOT of films.
He SHOUTS and SWEARS loudly in a LOT of films.
I believe that is slightly more accurate.
Yep but to be fair to them they've both had spectacular career's and I'm personally not that bothered about them not giving an effort in their latest films epsecially De Niro who's probably very worn out after changing the state of his body so many times for certain roles.
This is how fit De Niro became when he was 48 years old to play the villain in Cape Fear.
I suggest everyone to watch The Godfather II, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull one afther another and you will see what character transformation is all about.
My favourite actor of all time.
Yep but to be fair to them they've both had spectacular career's and I'm personally not that bothered about them not giving an effort in their latest films epsecially De Niro who's probably very worn out after changing the state of his body so many times for certain roles.
This is how fit De Niro became when he was 48 years old to play the villain in Cape Fear.
I suggest everyone to watch The Godfather II, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull one afther another and you will see what character transformation is all about.
My favourite actor of all time.
Steroids baby!
Yeah, so?
I'm always amazed at how many people think that if you use steroids you'll become fit without realizing that it's still painful as hell and that you still need to work extremely hard to become really fit as Deniro is in that pic.
How do we even know he used steroids?
Because at 48 years he was in teh best shape of his life by some distance, look at him in Raging Bull compared to that. Great actor though regardless, and I could care less really, but something seems fishy about getting into that shape after never being anywhere near that in his life.