I'm sorry but Andrew McCarthy is one of those Actors that somehow fell into great movies. If you want to know how to play a wimp just watch any of his movies. He's horrible and completely gets overshadowed by any other average actor. The only movie where he didn't play the same weak-ass rich boy character was "Weekend at Uncle Bernie's" But yet again he got dominated by a guy who plays a dead guy. His best line was "Come on Steff" in "Pretty In Pink" as James Spader dominates the hell out of him.
Kristen Stewart, Miss piggy nose and really plays the same person in virtually every movie with the only difference being the time period of the flick. Just a dislikable actor on multiple levels and has zero depth of character. She is vapid and boring
Quote:
In comment 14926219 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
But in his later years he started accepting roles in some really bad movies, and mailing in some performances. I don't know if he just needed the money or what. Pretending he was never great is absurd.
Nic Cage can be great with the right roles. Since he spends immense sums of money on ludicrous things, he takes virtually anything he's offered. That's how the guy who was so good in Leaving Las Vegas, Matchstick Men, Adaptation, and others ends up in a parade of horrendous dreck like The Wicker Man, Knowing, Left Behind, Ghost Rider, Bangkok Dangerous, and so on and so on.
Quite a few of these people named here aren't terrible. They just don't have a lot of range, and when they stray from what they do well they struggle.
Depends on the audience too for Cage. My kids love the National Treasure movies.
I liked Raising Arizona. And who doesn't like Con Air? It's like Road House but on a plane with convicts.
But when he's bad, man he's bad. Some people say it's the script, or the role, or whatever, sure it probably is, but most fans it's part and parcel on the actor.
I think the key here for me (again) is with almost everyone mentioned in the thread I have found at least some of their work entertaining.
I liked Cage in Leaving Las Vegas.
I don't know how to judge acting. If I like a movie than I like the actor. For example, I have no idea if William Hurt is a good actor but I have liked some movies he has been in so I like the actor. Although when I think about Hurt, he seems to act the same in every movie.
And I say I liked Cage in Leaving Las Vegas because I liked the movie. It easily could have been Russel Crowe, etc. and I would probably have liked it the same.
Quote:
But maybe that’s just me.
Looks and charisma, mildly funny.
Looks I get wrt Luke, but Owen?
Having practiced Martial Arts under really great masters, Reeves also absolutely stinks in fighting scenes. I don't give a rat's ass what and who he is off the screen, I will never pay to see Keanu Reeves act and inevitably change the channel before finishing anything he's done that's televised since the first Matrix.
I guess he's a better actor than Steven Segal (not mentioned yet? How did he slip through the cracks?), but Segal is a much better martial artist, or actor playing a martial artist...
And DeNiro stinks? Personally I love his comedy work, or at least a good bit of it. His biggest problem might just be the absolutely outstanding actors he's been cast with at times, especially Al Pacino and Harvey Kietel.
I never understood how, after Taxi Driver, DeNiro's career took off and Kietel's just strode along.
Quote:
doing serious roles. Keanu Reeves does the exact movies he should be doing and he's great at it, IMO. He also makes movies to give away money so he's one of my favorite actors in the business just due to that (I know irrelevant to the thread).
Dave Franco sucks too but he gets roles specific to that so i don't really count him. I'm more thinking starring roles.
Biggest for my is Ryan Reynolds. He lucked into Deadpool since he can be a shitty actor and get away with it, but man is he abysmal. Everything is Van Wilder, which is fine in small doses but i figured he'd try something new after 20 years.
So you belittle those who mention Keanu Reeves and other niche actors... but then go after Ryan Reynolds. Ok then!
Didnt realize Speed and Matrix werent "serious roles" - anyway i mentioned above Reeves was a good guy off-screen so didnt want to be overly harsh... but I fail to see how Reynolds today is thought of differently than Reeves was back then.
I mean Adam Sandler is a horrible actor too, but to your point, I'm not going to get on him for the 2-3 serious movies he's done in his career since everyone knows he's more of a comedian. Jennifer Aniston similar deal.
I'm belittling? Haha, alrighty.
My point was that Keanu Reeves isn't doing serious movies, hes playing roles that fit him and he does them well - and as far as the acting goes he does a lot of his owns stunts. No, I don't categorize Speed as serious, not at all. And the Matrix wasn't a drama either.
I guess you can say the same for Ryan Reynolds (are you a relative of his?) but he's always been unfunny so I guess for me its magnified. I think he sucks including the roles where him sucking is supposed to be passable. "Waiting" i enjoyed but he was the weak link in it, IMO.
Sandler has some acting chops, IMO. If he does another serious movie like Uncut Gems he may be able to open up that part of his resume more.
But at least he looks and moves like a martial artist, as noted.
What is your definition of a serious movie?
and the better the child actor is, the weirder that kid is in real life.
Quote:
In comment 14926085 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
doing serious roles. Keanu Reeves does the exact movies he should be doing and he's great at it, IMO. He also makes movies to give away money so he's one of my favorite actors in the business just due to that (I know irrelevant to the thread).
Dave Franco sucks too but he gets roles specific to that so i don't really count him. I'm more thinking starring roles.
Biggest for my is Ryan Reynolds. He lucked into Deadpool since he can be a shitty actor and get away with it, but man is he abysmal. Everything is Van Wilder, which is fine in small doses but i figured he'd try something new after 20 years.
So you belittle those who mention Keanu Reeves and other niche actors... but then go after Ryan Reynolds. Ok then!
Didnt realize Speed and Matrix werent "serious roles" - anyway i mentioned above Reeves was a good guy off-screen so didnt want to be overly harsh... but I fail to see how Reynolds today is thought of differently than Reeves was back then.
I mean Adam Sandler is a horrible actor too, but to your point, I'm not going to get on him for the 2-3 serious movies he's done in his career since everyone knows he's more of a comedian. Jennifer Aniston similar deal.
I'm belittling? Haha, alrighty.
My point was that Keanu Reeves isn't doing serious movies, hes playing roles that fit him and he does them well - and as far as the acting goes he does a lot of his owns stunts. No, I don't categorize Speed as serious, not at all. And the Matrix wasn't a drama either.
I guess you can say the same for Ryan Reynolds (are you a relative of his?) but he's always been unfunny so I guess for me its magnified. I think he sucks including the roles where him sucking is supposed to be passable. "Waiting" i enjoyed but he was the weak link in it, IMO.
Sandler has some acting chops, IMO. If he does another serious movie like Uncut Gems he may be able to open up that part of his resume more.
I hated Uncut Gems. Not sure where the hype came from. However, I really enjoyed his movie on post-9/11. I forgot the name of it. That was a drama and worked.
Yes, but I just watched Holes with my son. I enjoy that movie.
Quote:
In comment 14926128 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
In comment 14926085 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
doing serious roles. Keanu Reeves does the exact movies he should be doing and he's great at it, IMO. He also makes movies to give away money so he's one of my favorite actors in the business just due to that (I know irrelevant to the thread).
Dave Franco sucks too but he gets roles specific to that so i don't really count him. I'm more thinking starring roles.
Biggest for my is Ryan Reynolds. He lucked into Deadpool since he can be a shitty actor and get away with it, but man is he abysmal. Everything is Van Wilder, which is fine in small doses but i figured he'd try something new after 20 years.
So you belittle those who mention Keanu Reeves and other niche actors... but then go after Ryan Reynolds. Ok then!
Didnt realize Speed and Matrix werent "serious roles" - anyway i mentioned above Reeves was a good guy off-screen so didnt want to be overly harsh... but I fail to see how Reynolds today is thought of differently than Reeves was back then.
I mean Adam Sandler is a horrible actor too, but to your point, I'm not going to get on him for the 2-3 serious movies he's done in his career since everyone knows he's more of a comedian. Jennifer Aniston similar deal.
I'm belittling? Haha, alrighty.
My point was that Keanu Reeves isn't doing serious movies, hes playing roles that fit him and he does them well - and as far as the acting goes he does a lot of his owns stunts. No, I don't categorize Speed as serious, not at all. And the Matrix wasn't a drama either.
I guess you can say the same for Ryan Reynolds (are you a relative of his?) but he's always been unfunny so I guess for me its magnified. I think he sucks including the roles where him sucking is supposed to be passable. "Waiting" i enjoyed but he was the weak link in it, IMO.
Sandler has some acting chops, IMO. If he does another serious movie like Uncut Gems he may be able to open up that part of his resume more.
I hated Uncut Gems. Not sure where the hype came from. However, I really enjoyed his movie on post-9/11. I forgot the name of it. That was a drama and worked.
Just remembered it was Reign Over Me.
What is your definition of a serious movie?
I don't have a specific definition but when I think of Speed, "serious" isn't exactly at the top of the list. It was a summer action blockbuster. No different than Armageddon in how I'd classify it - Action/Adventure.
Was Top Gun serious?
Not sure what you mean by a serious movie if this isn't serious, is it just the English Patient?
Speed received positive reviews and has a "certified fresh" score of 94% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 65 reviews, with an average rating of 7.92/10. The critical consensus reads: "A terrific popcorn thriller, Speed is taut, tense, and energetic, with outstanding performances from Keanu Reeves, Dennis Hopper, and Sandra Bullock."[19] The film also has a score of 78 out of 100 on Metacritic based on 17 critics indicating "Generally favorable reviews."[20] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A" on an A+ to F scale.[21]
Roger Ebert gave the film four out of four stars and wrote, "Films like Speed belong to the genre I call Bruised Forearm Movies, because you're always grabbing the arm of the person sitting next to you. Done wrong, they seem like tired replays of old chase cliches. Done well, they're fun. Done as well as Speed, they generate a kind of manic exhilaration".[22] In his review for Rolling Stone magazine, Peter Travers wrote, "Action flicks are usually written off as a debased genre, unless, of course, they work. And Speed works like a charm. It's a reminder of how much movie escapism can still stir us when it's dished out with this kind of dazzle".[23] In her review for The New York Times, Janet Maslin wrote, "Mr. Hopper finds nice new ways to convey crazy menace with each new role. Certainly he's the most colorful figure in a film that wastes no time on character development or personality".[24] Entertainment Weekly gave the film an "A" rating and Owen Gleiberman wrote, "It's a pleasure to be in the hands of an action filmmaker who respects the audience. De Bont's craftsmanship is so supple that even the triple ending feels justified, like the cataclysmic final stage of a Sega death match".[25] Time magazine's Richard Schickel wrote, "The movie has two virtues essential to good pop thrillers. First, it plugs uncomplicatedly into lurking anxieties—in this case the ones we brush aside when we daily surrender ourselves to mass transit in a world where the loonies are everywhere".[26] Filmmaker Quentin Tarantino named the film one of the twenty best films he had seen from 1992 to 2009.[27][28]
Entertainment Weekly magazine's Owen Gleiberman ranked Speed as 1994's eighth best film.[29] The magazine also ranked the film eighth on their "The Best Rock-'em, Sock-'em Movies of the Past 25 Years" list.[30] Speed also ranks 451 on Empire magazine's 2008 list of "The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time".[31]
Mark Kermode of the BBC recalled having named Speed his film of the month working at Radio 1 at the time of release, and stated in 2017, having re-watched the film for the first time in many years, that it had stood the test of time and was a masterpiece.[32] ...
10 - There will be blood
5 - Speed, only serious because its got some suspense to it, but I chalk that up to any action movie for the most part
1 - Happy Gilmore
Don't know what to tell you man, Speed to me isn't a serious movie.
Quote:
it's an action thriller and I believe was highly successful - critically and commercially. Are only dramas serious?
What is your definition of a serious movie?
I don't have a specific definition but when I think of Speed, "serious" isn't exactly at the top of the list. It was a summer action blockbuster. No different than Armageddon in how I'd classify it - Action/Adventure.
Was Top Gun serious?
I'm not sure I understand the adjective the way you are using it.
It sounds like the only serious movie to you is a drama.
And I'm not defending Keanu Reeves (though I do like him - like others have said -as much as philanthropist/good dude (by reputation) as an actor) but I want to understand what you mean by a film or role being serious.
The 'jump' was ridiculous. AND SHE KEPT IT OVER 55??!!! YEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Sure, its more of a drama classification for me. Doesn't matter either way though, categorize it however you want.
The 'jump' was ridiculous. AND SHE KEPT IT OVER 55??!!! YEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
I saw it on vacation one night in Disney when I was 9 years old. Loved it for what it was and I'll watch it today. But its still corny and the action is solid. That's about it. Dennis Hopper yelling into the phone with his clawhand is more comical than serious, IMO.
The 'jump' was ridiculous. AND SHE KEPT IT OVER 55??!!! YEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!
Hahaha. And where was the ramp that made the bus go up in the air instead of head first into the ground?
Still, I'd have to agree it was serious movie. Doesn't mean it wasn't silly or funny at points.
Most action/thriller movie plots are "serious", isn't that the whole point? Going up against great odds to take down the bad guys.
Most action/thriller movie plots are "serious", isn't that the whole point? Going up against great odds to take down the bad guys.
Was Die Hard serious? What is realistic about that? It's one of my favorite movies, and I believe it's a serious movie.
I watched a man tie a fire hose loosely around his waist and jump off a high rise building and kick a window a couple times with his feet and then pull his gun out and shoot holes in the window so he could get through it and then just as the weight of the fire hose wheel was about to pull him out to his death he was able to free himself from the hose.
No, most action/thriller movies are not really believable from a plot detail standpoint, but they're entertaining.
Cage
Keanu Reeves
Quote:
That guy annoys the crap out of me.
Yes, but I just watched Holes with my son. I enjoy that movie.
Peanut Butter Falcon was one of the best movies last year too
Quote:
In comment 14926281 eric2425ny said:
Quote:
That guy annoys the crap out of me.
Yes, but I just watched Holes with my son. I enjoy that movie.
Peanut Butter Falcon was one of the best movies last year too
Didn't see it but saw something about it. I'll check it out.
As far as male actors... Nicholas Cage. How he became a big star is a mystery. He's had a couple of good roles that fit his quirky personality, but overall... nah.
Late to this party and not willing to read the whole whole thread so apologies if someone pointed this out but he was related to FrancIs Ford Coppola.
Will Smith’s kid is another case of REALLY bad nepotism.
Quote:
That guy annoys the crap out of me.
Yes, but I just watched Holes with my son. I enjoy that movie.
That was a decent movie. He is definitely a better actor than one of his co-stars in that, Rick Fox lol.
Four Weddings and a Funeral is a terrific movie. She, however, is just awful in it. Cringe worthy.
Sure, I get that. He's a bit of a screwball. The guy rented a theater to show a marathon of his own movies, then livestreamed himself watching said movies. Unless its a brilliant troll job its Martin Shkreli-level jackassery, which is comparable to Jeff Bezos-level wealth.
But I like a lot of his movies lol. Fury is the latest cable channel-stopper, which I mean as high praise.
Quote:
In comment 14926128 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
In comment 14926085 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
doing serious roles. Keanu Reeves does the exact movies he should be doing and he's great at it, IMO. He also makes movies to give away money so he's one of my favorite actors in the business just due to that (I know irrelevant to the thread).
Dave Franco sucks too but he gets roles specific to that so i don't really count him. I'm more thinking starring roles.
Biggest for my is Ryan Reynolds. He lucked into Deadpool since he can be a shitty actor and get away with it, but man is he abysmal. Everything is Van Wilder, which is fine in small doses but i figured he'd try something new after 20 years.
So you belittle those who mention Keanu Reeves and other niche actors... but then go after Ryan Reynolds. Ok then!
Didnt realize Speed and Matrix werent "serious roles" - anyway i mentioned above Reeves was a good guy off-screen so didnt want to be overly harsh... but I fail to see how Reynolds today is thought of differently than Reeves was back then.
I mean Adam Sandler is a horrible actor too, but to your point, I'm not going to get on him for the 2-3 serious movies he's done in his career since everyone knows he's more of a comedian. Jennifer Aniston similar deal.
I'm belittling? Haha, alrighty.
My point was that Keanu Reeves isn't doing serious movies, hes playing roles that fit him and he does them well - and as far as the acting goes he does a lot of his owns stunts. No, I don't categorize Speed as serious, not at all. And the Matrix wasn't a drama either.
I guess you can say the same for Ryan Reynolds (are you a relative of his?) but he's always been unfunny so I guess for me its magnified. I think he sucks including the roles where him sucking is supposed to be passable. "Waiting" i enjoyed but he was the weak link in it, IMO.
Sandler has some acting chops, IMO. If he does another serious movie like Uncut Gems he may be able to open up that part of his resume more.
I hated Uncut Gems. Not sure where the hype came from. However, I really enjoyed his movie on post-9/11. I forgot the name of it. That was a drama and worked.
He (and Pacino) sometimes have gotten a bit comfortable and less nuanced in some dramatic roles as they aged, but I’m surprised that others don’t see how talented they both are.
Even some glimpes of that in Meet the Fockers, but that movie was such a shit show after the original it was hardly noticeable.
Also, while Midnight Run may not be a comedy, there was some pretty hilarious scenes.
De Niro is obviously one of the best actors of this generation, but he seems to be struggling in his later years IMO - but I do think he had the chops to pull off comedy - even though he excelled as a mobster/tough guy/villain.
DeNiro can't carry a movie anymore, but he can do well for 10/15 minutes.
Casino + Heat was his last great year and that was 1995 He's had other good movies since then but nothing like that.
I think the best summary of Pitt's acting skills was: he's an awesome supporting/character actor stuck in the body of a leading actor.