Zadie Smith reading.George Kelley was blogging about his so-so reaction to the Cage movie KNOWING last week and it occurred to me that certain actors just never work for me in a movie. Nicholas Cage would be one of them. He always seems ready to burst into flames whether the movie deserves that performance or not.
Another issue that spoils a film sometimes is over-familiarity with a performer in a movie where unknown actors might work better. For instance, I saw TWO LOVERS last week, and although Paltrow's performance was just fine, all I could think about was: so this is the body she's promoting all over town right now.
Her role, in a small indie kind of film, begged for a female who brought no baggage onto the set (and I'm not talking about excess weight).
Mel Gibson-I can't imagine going to see a movie starring Mel again. Same with Richard Gere--he always seems like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Julia Roberts-I'm always waiting for her to flash the big smile. Matthew McConaghy-didn't he start out to be a credible actor--and then Kate Hudson caught up with him. Would she still be making movies if she wasn't Hollywood royalty?
Is this just me? Are you always willing to give an actor a second or fifth chance? Or does their name on the credits sink it for you?
Who takes you right out of a story? Whose movies do you stay away from?
33 comments:
I usually don't find an actor distracting because of previous performances (or even extra-cirricular activity), but can be put off by the performance in front of me. Just saw a film with Fisher Stevens in in the other day, and I find his presence off-putting, but he's typecast playing jackasses, so it almost works for him. Certainly such anti-actors as Pauly Shore are intolerable in all circumstances (Kate Hudson surely hasn't exploited nepotism to his degree...say, she's a Hudson Brother's kid!).
I was able to enjoy Gibson in RANSOM the other day, which I hadn't seen previously. Don't want to be around him, but he can act within a certain context. Hell, if I can enjoy a Miles Davis solo, and I can, you know that we can divorce, to some degree, the art from the artist. (Music might make that easier than acting.)
The rare actor who can lose himself in a part is gold for me.
I have always had the same reaction to Nicholas Cage. There's something about him that sets my teeth on edge -- although I think he was actually a great fit for and excellent in Leaving Las Vegas.
Brad Pitt was a total distraction for me in Benjamin Button -- but there's a good chance that any actor would have been because of the special effects.
The actors who are one trick ponies and always seem to be playing the same character (the ones you named are great examples) are the types who take me out of the movie. (Notable exception: Mel Gibson was great in The Million Dollar Hotel).
Actors who really bring a performance to each movie and who transform and make me forget who they are make a movie for me. People like: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, Meryl Streep, Robert Downey Jr.
And those are four I like too. Also Johnny Depp. But PSH is probably the greatest actor acting today for bringing something new to each part. He's fearless on the screen. And stage, I saw him in TRUE WEST, amazing.
Johnny Depp, yes and John Turturro and Edward Norton too...
Edward Norton-one of the most riveting debuts either-despite the Gere presence.
Honestly the only role I've seen Richard Gere in and I didn't go "there is Richard Gere, the persona," was "Internal Affairs." Same with Julia Roberts, I always see them as playing extensions of themselves. That was okay for John Wayne, Gary Cooper and Marilyn Monroe, but today's actor has to do more to get me into the theater now.
This is probably why I used to be so infatuated with European films, because I saw a cast of actors that I didn't recognize, or they got to play against the usual grain only because they were qualified, as opposed to stunt casting.
One of the reasons I loved "Watchmen," was because I only recognized two actors in the film (only just barely) and I could take in the story without the distraction of familiar faces and personae.
I stay away from Cage, though. He's been in so many movies with less than mediocre scripts, or he signed on to projects just so he could be quirky.
Maybe that's why I love foreign films too. I rarely know the actors in them. Even if their face is familiar, not recognizing the words in their language makes them remote. Or maybe I like to read my movies.
Tom Cruise is one I can't watch anymore. He was never a huge favorite, but after his "pre-adolescent" jumping up and down on Oprah's couch, so obviously fake, he just leaves me cold.
We don't see any young actors today in the mold of a Hoffman, Pacino, oe De Niro, capable of making you believe they are the part they are playing.
Brian DePalma will keep me out of a theater. He strikes me as too concerned with showing how clever he is, working in his homages to other films, whether they fit the current project or not.
His name hasn't come up yet in this discussion, but I'll give serious consideration to any movie with John Malkovich.
Ditto for Cruise and ironically I used to like him and thought he made brave choices--like Born of the Fourth of July. But now his personal life has soured my ability to see beyond that.
Brian DePalma just drives me crazy. He is the definition of the word "Excess"
Malkovich-sometimes I love him and sometimes he's too noticeably quirky. Veering into Christopher Walken or Val Kilmer territory.
Loved him in Ripley's Last Game and Being John Malkovich.
If anything, you're both too kind to the inept DePalma.
Cruise has never been worse than in THE COLOR OF MONEY, where he ruined that film...so bad that I have to think the director insanely asked him to do that. I think he was well used in EYES WIDE SHUT, however...and he's an appropriate tool, in several senses, in the underwhelming MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE films.
I thought he was good that too. Peoole either despise that movie or love it. I loved it the first time but catching a few minutes the other night, I am not sure what my response would be this time out. I thought he was fine in RAINMAN.
Whose movies do I avoid? Gibson, yep because i can't separate actor from person (not to mention he just doesn't make movies that appeal to me). I don't know that i've ever seen a Cruise movie either.
Alas, DeNiro only for that latter reason (I've seen him in 2 films. "Brazil" and "Stardust" neither of which strike me as the usual.) I'm also a heathen when it comes to "the best actress ever" because I can never watch Meryl Streep without knowing it's Meryl Streep. for me, she never disappears into the role (and her roles in recent years haven't appealed.) And there are all the 14 year olds (as i dub them, no matter the age. The fart, bathroom, jerk off movies by the same bunch of young men. Never not ever, nope. Though Will Ferrell can act if given a good role and a strong director.)
To balance all this whining, I'll offer that i went rather gaga over Sean Penn's brilliance in "MILK" a role he completely disappeared into. I now DO have to go back and take a look at his films because I don't know that I've ever seen better acting.
Sean Penn! How could I have left him out. He's been brilliant in everything I've ever seen him in. I almost had nightmares over his performance in Dead Man Walking and Milk was a triumph.
I don't see too many movies, but I react in a similar way to John Cage---it's the sleaze factor for me.
I like Johnny Depp and Sean Penn, too, and Susan Sarandon, Olympia Dukakis, Meryl Streep.....
Oh, thanks for bringing Sean Penn into it. He's just amazing. MYSTIC RIVER, MILK and DEAD MAN WALKING especially. He should make more movies. No, he shouldn't. He probably makes the right amount. MILK was just a knock your socks off performance. Although there were lots of good ones this year for men.
Over the last few years, I’ve discovered that I have a real affection for Neil Jordon movies. He’s not someone I’d ever claim as a favorite, but I do seem to have an alarming number of his films on DVD.
It was armed with this knowledge that I picked up his ’Michael Collins’ one day, partly for his direction and partly because I have a real interest in the time period.
Ugh. I will say that apart from the script itself (which appears to be compelled to make some kind of moral statement on Collins actions, but is equally confused as to whether it approves or not) Liam Neeson is far too iconic an actor for the title role, jarring the viewer every time he’s on screen. (apparently the role was originally meant for Gabriel Byrne.) while his right hand man is Adian Quinn (known for playing ’Hollywood Irish’ roles) and then, in a horrendous piece of miscasting, JULIA ROBERTS is the woman who comes between them.
Most good films are improved by performance, this one is completely hobbled by the presence of it’s stars.
Loved MONA LISA and THE CRYING GAME, but Michael Collins was not my cuppa either.
Neeson is another actor that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. He can weigh a movie down for me. I hated NELL, for instance, and KINSEY too.
But in SHINDLER's LIST, he was perfect.
1969-An old-school Hollywood leading man named William Holden in a little western called The Wild Bunch. I figured the best I could hope for was maybe a knockoff of a John Wayne flick. It wasn't. If you've seen the movie you know what I mean.
After I got over the shock of the realistic violence I was absoloutely stunned by the gritty performances of Holden, Edmond O'Brian, Robert Ryan and some guy I knew only from McHales Navy, Ernest Borgnine. Even though it was released almost forty years ago[and the level of violence is no longer as shocking as it was in 1969] it remains one of my favorite films and contains several of my favorite performances by "star" class actors.
John McAuley
Sometimes it seems like Hollywood was determined we shouldn't see an actor inhabit a part, but only play him/herself. I've only seen this once, I need to revisit.
Any leading man could have played the role Nicolas Cage played in KNOWING. Cage brought nothing special to the role. I find it very hard to watch Brad Pitt in any of his recent movies.
Is it the personal that has made Pitt less credible? Or were we fooled for a while?
If it's not about baseball I find that Kevin Costner seems to lack passion in most performances.
Costner-I have to agree with that.
After THELMA AND LOUISE, it's been all downhill for Brad Pitt the actor. Brad Pitt the Tabloid star is still going strong.
Patti, I see so few movies these days, it's hard for me to comment, though I will say I've never been a big Nicholas Cage fan. Like Todd, I try to divorce the art from the artist, but it's hard sometimes with the more high profile actors, like Tom Cruise. Some of his movies I've liked; some I haven't.
FWIW I love William Holden. H was great in Picnic (very sexy) as well as Stalag 17 and The Devil's Brigade about a join US-Canadian special forces unit during WWII. Cliff Robertson starred also, another actor I love. (Giving my age away.)
I just don't get the charm of Brad Pitt. Sure, he's cute but how far does that get me in a movie.
I am a bit movie-crazed, Linda. I have been known to go to three movies a week. And not necessarily good ones.
I can't handle daniel craig's james bond
I heard on NPR that a new movie of the 3 Stooges in the works, and that Sean Penn will play Larry, Jim Carey,Curly,and Benicio Del Toro, Moe.
Debra-For some reason, that is the craziest thing I ever heard. Especially Del Toro.
I like Daniel Craig as Bond. Not as much as Connery, of course, but more than Roger Moore. Living in England, you've probably seen him a lot more than I have and that might explain your distaste.
James nesbitt -a good actor but he was in EVERYTHING once!....I saw THE DUCHESS recently and everyone in that film was rotten because the film was so dire.would have made a good comedy...
Post a Comment