the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,420
|
Post by the_way on Jun 13, 2005 12:46:06 GMT -5
Denzel doesn't ALWAYS play Denzel. See e.g., "Training Day" and "Man on Fire." Training Day? That was Denzel, again. Oh, yeah, so his character was morally questionable, but he still acted the same. I'd like to see him do someone like Crowe did in the Insider -- no speeches, no "get angry" scenes, etc. I didn't see Man on Fire, so I can't comment. Denzel is a fine actor playing himself, but he hasn't shown the range -- and most actors don't. Denzel does have range. Training Day was a great role because he played the part of a crooked cop. But it wasn't the same corny bad guy role you see in most movies. It was a real as it gets. It was based on the Rampart scandal in LA. Denzel played the role to a tee. Have you seen Glory or Malcom X? Malcom X was probably Denzel's finest achievement. He basically played 3 different roles in one movie. He was robbed of an Oscar by Pacino in Scent of a Woman.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 12:46:29 GMT -5
Denzel doesn't ALWAYS play Denzel. See e.g., "Training Day" and "Man on Fire." Excellent Point!! Denzel would outlap Cruise anyday in acting. Denzel and Crowe are real actors to me. Cruise is a box office draw, not necessarily a great actor. Take Adam Sandler for example. The man is not that funny, not even remote funny, but his movies make tons of money. What do you guys think of Sean Penn as an actor? Denzel is better than Cruise, but he still doesn't have range. Sean Penn is a fantastic actor. I really don't like his movie choices half the time or his politics, but you can't deny he is a great actor. Case in point: 1. He has no identifiable sense of humor. 2. He played Jeff Spicoli perfectly.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 12:46:42 GMT -5
If we are leaving film choice and box office aside and talking about only acting talent, I think Penn has much of it, although he does go for showy roles. I think the most talented actors with severe range in film are Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ed Norton and Liev Schrieber, who is more of a theatre actor really. But Schreiber was excellent in the fabulous RKO 281.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 13:26:36 GMT -5
Sean Penn has one role... Sean Penn. C'mon. His Oscar was a joke. Same character every time, simply turns the volume knob up or down.
bin, I agree that $150 million over a $100 million budget isn't much considering the risk. But two things:
1) if anyone can guarantee a return on a blockbuster like that, its Cruise. Unfortunately in Hollywood, there IS no opportunity cost because they aren't INTERESTED in making five "artsy" films at $20 million a piece... they just want the next "SpiderMan."
2) Gotta look beyond American box office take - studio execs do. If a film has a budget of $100 million, more and more so execs from the START are thinking about marketing overseas, DVD sales, etc. THAT'S where the money is. Many industry types I know think the day will come when the majority of films go straight to DVD simply because it can be done for cheaper than the traditional film run through theatres and it gives those involved more artistic freedom and eliminates many of the middle-men. THAT would be a sad day if you ask me.
As for actors who play themselves, most of the big ones do if you think about it. Crowe, Cruise, Denzel, Penn, DeNiro, Pacino, Nicholson... they all get to the point where to a certain extent you're typecast. We let them off the hook and say they have "range" when they even remotely waver from that path. Very few can avoid it.
Oh yeah bin, one more thing - GREAT call on "RKO." Wish more people could see that.
|
|
|
Post by BeantownHoya on Jun 13, 2005 14:01:42 GMT -5
1) First off I agree with "Bin" in regards to range. If your looking for actors with the capabililty to play anything I would look more towards Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Daniel Day Lewis, and John C. Reilly. 2) However I don't dismiss the capabililty of actors like a Cruise or Pitt because although their looks are probably what got them their first roles. I think Cruise was excellent in both Magnolia(which he got nominated for) and Born of the Fourth of July. Those certainly show the range your looking for. One of the posts stated Cruise has never portrayed a real sleeze bag until Collateral. Then you haven't seen Magnolia. 3) I also disagree with "War of the Worlds" looking like a snoozer. I think it will be very sucessful in regards to profit and with the critics. The trailers I have seen have left me personally intrigued even though it holds the same premise of "bad aliens vs humans" that many sci-fi pics do.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 14:09:38 GMT -5
Denzel may have played the cop in training day like it was written -- it was still "Denzel."
I love Glory (All-time Top 5). Denzel was FANTASTIC. Still Denzel. He was fantastic as well in Malcolm X, but still Denzel.
Same with Cruise. So what if we was "bad" in Magnolia and Collateral? He was still the cocky, self-assured, smiling, in control guy. If he wants to show range, Cruise and Denzel should take roles where they are losers, show self-doubt, act timid. That's range.
I agree that these actors get typecast. But they have the opportunity to go elsewhere and do an art film/independent. Not that they NEED to, because heck, I'd rather work less and get paid more, but if they wanted to show range, it isn't impossible.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 14:13:20 GMT -5
If you want an example of a big-time, big movie actor (as in star) who has excellent range and is a pretty good actor, Matt Damon is a good bet. He keeps many of the same mannerisms, but someone like Jason Bourne is quite a bit different than Tom Ripley.
|
|
RDF
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 8,835
|
Post by RDF on Jun 13, 2005 14:13:32 GMT -5
Is the movie good enough to overcome an admitted Zellwegher hater's bias against her? I find her pouty face too ugly to look at and she annoys me. It dates back to the first time I saw her in Jerry McGuire and I was hoping he'd dump her the entire movie or just use her services as his lackey and then leave her in dirt behind when he made it big again. Don't think she's very attractive and her acting is bland.
As for the Cruise gone nuts stuff--I love it! Nothing like seeing people flip out and it's like a Mike Tyson press conference--entertainment for the masses, ;D Anyways, I agree 100% with the poster who brought up what Tom might be using this phony Katie Holmes thing for but as we learned to say via Seinfeld "not that there's anything wrong with it". Personally I liked Cruise in Collateral and most of his movies are watchable which is sign of good acting in my opinion--same with Denzel Washington.
Speaking of acting nightmares, why is everyone afraid to call out Chris Rock for being overrated as an entertainer? Stand up Rock is good--anything else with him is AWFUL. And Sandler is something I'll never understand--I like some of his movies and yet I don't get the acclaim and love he seems to get from his fans. More power to him though.
Hollywood is in a rut right now and with all of the remakes, I'm anxiously awaiting who they'll dub as the new "Cory's--Haim and Feldman" I can't wait to see Lost Boys II or License to Drive II--that would be truly rock bottom--but it's Hollywood and the creativity is scarce.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 14:14:20 GMT -5
I’m shocked at some of these comments. Where is the film knowledge? Where is the knowledge on the current state of the business and people’s careers? Let me try to counter some of these remarks. ;D I’m not sure if that’s true. You’re talking about a lot of actors out there, most of whom aren’t well known stars. But that’s a key point. If you are a superstar you get a chance at the top roles that others don’t get; you reject roles before they are passed on to other actors. And frankly no one gets the amount of choices as white male actors. Actresses of all races don’t get nearly the opportunities that men do because right now it’s a business ran by mostly for the male audience (especially young men). Female stars are lucky if they still have a respectable career once they reach the age of 40. Also 90% of the scripts at least are written by white males and 95% of the characters they use for leads in their stories are, originally at least, conceived in their minds as white males. So not even a minority actor like Denzel Washington can get the range of roles that the top white actors are given. Most of Washington’s nominations have come from playing historical figures which shouldn’t surprise anyone because most white screen writers don’t sit down to write three dimensional, Oscar caliber roles for actors who aren’t white. Actually the movie has gotten mostly good reviews. Also Pitt and Jolie are big stars because of the media, not because of their box office clout. When Pitt is the main star in a movie, the only star, those films tend not to do well. They don’t make a profit. Its only when he is placed in a flick like “Ocean’s Eleven” in which he doesn’t have to carry the movie on his own does he find any box office success. But even in some ensemble flicks he has a role in like “Troy” end up bombing and would have lost money if it wasn’t for the international box office. That’s another advantage white actors have in that even if their movies don’t do well in North America they can get a second chance and do very, very well overseas. Will Smith is the only black actor (or any American minority for that matter) who can currently consistently do well overseas. As for Jolie almost all of her flicks end up tanking at the box office. Her last big hit was the first Tomb Raider and that’s only because it was a silly, special effects popcorn flick with a huge built in audience. Like Halle Berry, Jolie is treated as one of the biggest Hollywood stars in the world even though her box office track record is pathetic. Industry insiders thought the whole Jolie-Pitt rumors would hurt “Mr and Mrs Smith” at the box office just like it did with “Gigli”. But the reverse happened. Its not close to having the best boxing scenes. But frankly I care more about story, acting and overall direction than I do about how realistic the athletic performaces look. Minority made over 100 million dollars in the USA and at least that much overseas. The industry may have expected more but I can’t call it a financial flop. “100 Days Around the World” was a flop. As for the latest Cruise movies Vanilla Sky was a big disappointment in terms of North American box office and The Last Samurai, based on its cost, was only a solid to good performer based upon what it made in American theaters. The movie though did make back its money overseas and in DVD sales. “Collateral” took its time to break 100 million in the US but it got there. It too made a lot more money overseas and in DVD. So Cruise may not be a strong a pull as he once was but he isn’t in any slump. His flicks are still making money and it will be hard to find someone else in the history of motion pictures who has had as long a successful box office streak or been in the very top tier of Hollywood draws. Premier magazine recently chose Cruise as the #3 movie star of all time I think. That may have been an exaggeration but an argument, base on box office clout, could be made for it. First of all the problems with MI3 were- a)Cruise’ s strange behavior recently which really worries the studios. b)the fact that the flick is already set to cost $200 million and rising As for Crowe he is a great actor and a very good movie star, but he has not ever proven that he was a consistent box office attraction. Outside of “Gladiator” what film that he carried was a very big box office hit? Not a “Beautiful Mind”. Not “Master and Commander” which luckily was a huge hit on DVD (which the industry relies now more on than actual money at the theaters) because it didn’t sell that many tickets. And not “Cinderella Man” which despite all of its great acclaim is already being labeled as a box office disappointment. To be fair ticket sales are way down this year overall, but my point is that Crowe does not have a great track record. It doesn’t help that he does a lot of period pictures and non special effects flicks. His character in “Training Day” wasn’t righteous; you appear to be projecting that description upon the character because that’s how you view Washington. And if that character was loud how does that match some of Washington’s performances that were not loud but subtle and quiet instead? I will admit that for years Washington had the rep of being a very good actor but one who would play dignified characters again and again. Part of that was due to the lack of range of roles he and other minority actors are offered. But the other reason was because Washington took what I saw as a silly little morale stand on roles he would accept which came across as self righteous at times. He turned down films like “Seven” because they were too dark and the characters he leaned towards were good men. But he started to turn that around with “He Got Game” which was a so-so film but still allowed Washington to play a very flawed character. And he has taken on less and less dignified roles over the last few years. But still if you can’t see the range in roles in movies he has played from “Mississippi Masala” to “Malcom X”, “Devil In A Blue Dress” to “Courage Under Fire”, “the Hurricane” to “Man on Fire”, then I feel you aren’t paying attention. Will Smith plays Will Smith. Tom Cruise tends to play Tom Cruise. But Washington has great range. I didn’t care for the new “Manchurian Candidate” as much as the original, but Washington is simply brilliant in it. You responded to a quote about Washington when you wrote so I’m assuming you’re referring to Wahington and not Cruise. If so let me point out that was Jamie Foxx, not Denzel. Check out “The Mighty Quinn”, “Mississippi Masala”, “Mo Better Blues", “Devil In a Blue Dress”, “Fallen”, “He Got Game”, “The Bone Collector”, “Out of Time”, to name a few. Most of those flicks aren’t all that good but I would love to see if you can find those stereotypical scenes that you suggest crops up in all of Denzel’s performances. And can I ask what are the films in which Russell Crowed DOES NOT get angry or glowers? By the way the script for “The Insider” is a far better script than any Washington has ever had to work with. Washington has made a rep amongst critics and fellow actors for being one of the best actors of his generation but he has done that for the most part without having great material to work with.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jun 13, 2005 14:22:44 GMT -5
I haven't seen about half of those, but I do agree with you on "He Got Game." I actually really liked that movie, and Denzel was good. Would've been a great movie had the hooker been edited out, I think.
Fallen seemed like vintage Denzel to me. I can't remember Devil in a Blue Dress, but I saw it.
I think Denzel is an excellent actor, and should have won for X, but I'm still not seeing a whole lotta range. Not in the Pacino "no range" category, but still.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 14:24:10 GMT -5
Speaking of acting nightmares, why is everyone afraid to call out Chris Rock for being overrated as an entertainer? Stand up Rock is good--anything else with him is AWFUL. -- I've been saying this for years. He's has a great comic mind. He's smart. He knows how to write intelligent and entertaining material. He's great as a standup comedian. But he sucks as an actor. He's horrible even for a comedian when it comes to acting. I like to joke that when you watch a Chris Rock motion picture you're seeing two films because Chris is doing one movie while all the other actors are doing another. His performances are so bad it jars you from simply being caught up with the story and makes you all too aware that this guy isn't on the same page with the other performers on the screen. He needs to stop. Yesterday.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jun 13, 2005 14:33:21 GMT -5
I know this doesn't seem right mathematically, but movies that gross 200 mil world wide and have budgets of 100 mil (those numbers don't include marketing) are most certainly considered flops in studio terms. They were not good return on risk. And if Tom Cruise's films are now doing a bit better than breakeven, he is most certainly in a slump with regards to the high standard he set for himself.
I agree with those who say that movies are going to start going to DVD straightaway and not just the dreadful ones. The days of the movie theatre are quite numbered.
If we are going to talk about over-rated talent, I got two words; Samuel Jackson. He almost ruined Sith for me single-handidly. He is just atrocious. Still milking those Pulp Fiction fumes I see. For that matter, so is Travolta.
No Chris Rock can't act, but I like his comedy style. Interestingly, Adam Sandler CAN act, and I detest his comedy. (Punchdrunk Love and even Wedding Singer showed quite competnent acting.) Of course I consider Seinfeld one of the best two or three sitcoms in history, but Jerry Seinfeld makes Chris Rock look like Lawrence Olivier.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 13, 2005 14:45:55 GMT -5
How in God's name have I not joined this discussion all day? What have I been doing? Oh yeah, that's right, playing songs on my guitar.
(sorry, a Steve Zahn moment)
Anyway, I subscribe to the Trey Parker-Matt Stone philosophy: all actors are self-indulgent idiots. This is why I prefer films that do not feature actors, except their voices.
Having said that, my personal preference (and don't kid yourselves, it's all about personal preference) for actors I like to see work are:
1. Ed Norton, number one: just wish he could get some better roles recently.
2. Johnny Depp: he's like Sean Penn, only much more talented.
3. Jude Law: I didn't see anything he made in 2004, about 60 films I think, and I hear most of them sucked, but I liked most everything he did before then. Now that his overexposure period is done, I think he'll make some more good movies.
4. Kevin Spacey: clearly insane
5. Christopher Walken: clearly more insane
6. And yeah, OK, I do think Tom Cruise is good and makes good movies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 14:46:59 GMT -5
I know this doesn't seem right mathematically, but movies that gross 200 mil world wide and have budgets of 100 mil (those numbers don't include marketing) are most certainly considered flops in studio terms. They were not good return on risk. And if Tom Cruise's films are now doing a bit better than breakeven, he is most certainly in a slump with regards to the high standard he set for himself. I agree with those who say that movies are going to start going to DVD straightaway and not just the dreadful ones. The days of the movie theatre are quite numbered. If we are going to talk about over-rated talent, I got two words; Samuel Jackson. He almost ruined Sith for me single-handidly. He is just atrocious. Still milking those Pulp Fiction fumes I see. For that matter, so is Travolta. Sith was just boring all-around, but you bring up a good point. When people talk about Star Wars or Titanic or any of those MONSTER hits, they always talk about world-wide box office. Gotta do the same with these films we've been talking about. You say 200 over 100 isn't a big hit considering the risk, but its an IMMENSE success. Films that LOSE significant amounts of money at the box office become fiscal goldmines for producers when they go overseas and hit DVD. "Fight Club" is a perfect example. Once that thing went to DVD, it cleaned house and the producers are having the last laugh. I'm not sure I get what your point is, bin. What sort of return are you looking for with films? Having worked a lot with producers, I know that in today's Hollywood breakeven isn't necessarily a bad thing. Its not the best, but its acceptable because the film generally goes overseas, onto DVD, etc. The revenue streams for these "vehicles" are numerous. And Tom Cruise doesn't set box office standards for himself, he sets artistic ones. Now I'm not saying he doesn't care what the films DO at a box office, but - like a hoops recruit (see how I'm bringing this full circle kids, ) - there's a lot that goes into choosing a project (director, script, subject matter, potential to earn $$$, etc). All actors are typecast to a certain extent. If not by the Hollywood machinery, then by audiences who bring CONSIDERABLE baggage to each new film an actor is in. Dave Chappelle parodied this wonderfuly with his "Samuel Jackson Beer" skit. Hilarious. He's bound to take his show to HBO, to go completely off topic.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 14:48:16 GMT -5
I know this doesn't seem right mathematically, but movies that gross 200 mil world wide and have budgets of 100 mil (those numbers don't include marketing) are most certainly considered flops in studio terms. Well, it depends on how much was invested in advertisement. Typically you want a movie to gross twice its budget though it gets more tricky of course the higher that budget goes. In the case of "The Minority Report" it easily made over $100 million in the USA and way over that amount overseas which puts it very comfortably above 200 million. In fact when tracking down how Revenge of the Sith stacks up in terms of worldwide grosses I think I saw Minority Report in the top 50 or so highest grossing of all time (inflation not counted for adjustments of course). And considering how well Spielberg and Cruise's movies do on DVD, I'm pretty sure the DVD sales were good. By the way I liked that film but its flaw was that it had five endings, Steven S did not know how to conclude it. Not so sure about that. The home technology is getting better which hurts theaters. Also bootleg copies and downloads take a chunk away from the box office too. Even if a person sees the film at the theaters they may not give theaters repeat business by seeing it again because they can get copies off the black market or they can download it. Of course DVD sales/rentals also stop people from seeing a flick, even one they like, more than once in the theater. Since we know the films make it into stores as DVDs in a few months after the release we feel we can hold on and wait. Still you can't match going to the theaters in terms of a social event, crowd reaction, size of the screen, the thrill of going out on dates, etc. And expect movie theater chains to start making more and more IMAX screens. You may not care to see Lost In Translation on such a large screen, but a film like Spiderman would look great on such a screen.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 13, 2005 14:50:09 GMT -5
MY GOSH!
I never expected a throw away post about a movie pick to generate so much response! Including an "RBB type" post from MCIGuy!!
Great. We need some off-season, off-topic threads. And thanks ADMIN for letting it live.
I'll just add two things.
1. Hollywood today has greater revenues from DVD sales than they do from Domestic Box Office gross. Amazing right? And some pics already go straight to DVD. But I don't think the theaters will go away -- though they'll be hurt -- because of DVD. It's just too much fun to see a good picture in a big theater, huge screen, great sound, and enjoy it with hundreds of others (and some buttered popcorn!) Not to mention a great first date option.
2. Speaking of actors... OK, maybe not a HUGE star, not your classic "hero".... but... what about Paul Giammatti? I only remember him from SIDEWAYS and now CINDERELLA MAN, but did this guy do a great job or what?? After SIDEWAYS, it seemed like every restaurant in America was offering a special PINOT NOIR!
Enjoy the offseason!
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,312
|
Post by SSHoya on Jun 13, 2005 14:54:16 GMT -5
Giamatti was great in "American Splendor" -- and who can forget him as Pig Vomit Rushton in "Private Parts."
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 14:56:36 GMT -5
Jackson is a talented actor. He is just overexposed and is way too willing to take every last role ever offered which means he ends up making ten films per year. If you want to see his talent I would suggest you check out the one or two good independent films he appears in every few years. But for the most part you can stay away from his major Hollywood production roles because in those he is simply cashing a check. Seriously when doing the major studio flicks all he cares about is the location so he can figure out where to golf during his days off the set. By the way I thought he was pretty solid in Sith, a film I really enjoyed (take that, Buffalo ! ) As for Travolta he keeps squandering opportunities as a leading man because of his bad choices. Tarantino bought him back from the dead only to see Travolta dig his own grave once more.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,426
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jun 13, 2005 15:02:23 GMT -5
Giamatti was great in "American Splendor" -- and who can forget him as Pig Vomit Rushton in "Private Parts." He has been one of the very best character actors for the last eight years. He should have been nominated for both "American Splendor" and "Sideways" but he doesn't have "the look." Plus those movies involved characters whom most American audiences wouldn't find appealing. Too real if you know what I mean. Cool thing about Giamatti is that he has not whined about not getting nominated. He understands the deal and the order of things and he simply gets satisfaction from his work. I wish more actors were like him instead of the whores who sell themselves during Oscar season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2005 15:02:47 GMT -5
You're right about the thrill aspect, MCI. But don't discount the DVD angle. Digital cameras have changed filmmaking forever by allowing thousands of filmmakers (who would otherwise have no resources to make their film) to get their vision on screen (you should SEE what Kodak and other companies charge for film, cameras, etc.). Many are now venturing into cyberspace with some of these co-op "web theatres" and other streaming sites.
Theatres will never go away, but look at it this way: execs right NOW are so paranoid about spending money on ANYTHING, that they often only go with "sure things" (which just means a name is attached to the project - whether its "Cruise" or "Tarantino" or "Spider Man") regardless of quality of content. Its only going to get worse as ticket sales routinely fall year in and year out over the past few years (too much crap, if you ask me). Fillmmakers are going to find a way to circumvent this whole process of the top talent getting the top projects by going where the money is - DVD sales.
Yes, DVD's eat up some box office dollars, but what happens when you eliminate those box office dollars and give people the chance to see the film for three bones from Blockbuster? More loot. The reason it isn't more widespread now is because DVD technology isn't in every home... yet. Trust me, there are MANY name directors who want to cut out the studio system altogether (think of directors cooperatives like Dogme 95 and the failed Sodeberg - Mendes - et al. coop) and DVD's may be the way to do it. Some cable companies are already working with film studios to stream new releases on-demand... its only a matter of time before that sad day when going to the theatre is just something to do for fun, as opposed to a necessity to see new films.
|
|