Badmovies.org Forum

There are some actors that can make even the lamest films watchable and interesting.

Samuel L.. Jackson- Deep Blue Sea, The Long Kiss Goodnight, Rules Of Engagement, he can save anything. The script for Shaft was a complete mess, but Sam's coolness made it a decent film.

Morgan Freeman- Even though he keeps playing the same character in the same movies, he always brings dignity and a center to any movie.

Robert De Niro- He's in about five movies a year, but his characters are always interesting.

And, of course-

Bruce Campbell- I don't think I have to say how good he is on this board.

James Lorinz. I even watched Jerky Boys for him.

Denzel Washington- If Ice T and Eric Roberts starred in Training Day and it was shown on Cinemax 2 at 2:00 AM, would it be anything special? He even made Virtuosity and Ricochet watchable.

Lance Henrickson - Brings dignity, style, and professionalism to a lot of  junk only made watchable by his precense

At first glance, I thought this was about stars we'd like to see bumped off for real on film. Had to wonder why there wasn't a flood of replies with the likes of Pauly Shore, Leo DiCrappio, assorted pretty boy actors and SNL types.

Now, I see you meant something else. Hmmm, I'd have to say Gene Hackman lends quality to any film he's in, good or bad. The Quick and the Dead was actually a decent movie with him in it, and his Luthor was probably the best thing about the Superman movies.

I would also name James Earl Jones, but I can't, off the top of my head, remember him in anything too cheesy. Still, if he were in a cheesy movie, his mere presence would bring it up a couple of notches.

Dennis Hopper, Jeffrey Combs, and John Astin... It's not so much that they can "class up" a movie, but all three are consistantly entertaining, and their presences can bump nearly any movie up a couple of notches on the fun scale (except FearDotCom... Even Dr. West couldn't save that one).

James Earl Jones was in Exorcist 2, prancing around in an insect costume with eyes akin to Kermit The Frog's. Cheesy enough for you?

Sean Bean has a positive effect on the films he acts in.  Meryl Streep has elevated some garbage as well ("River Wild").

And let's not forget the late George C. Scott who was able to gave dignity and credibility even to "Angus"

Fearless Freep wrote:
>
> Lance Henrickson - Brings dignity, style, and professionalism
> to a lot of  junk only made watchable by his precense
>
>


I'll second that Freep!

Ian Holm (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Holm,+Ian) belongs in this category.  Probably my favorite actor working today, and I don't really care for actors all that much.

And what about Christopher Walken? He's been in loads of bad movies, but I still have to see him delivering a bad performance.

J.R. wrote:
>
> James Earl Jones was in Exorcist 2, prancing around in an
> insect costume with eyes akin to Kermit The Frog's. Cheesy
> enough for you?

Didn't see that one, but now I want to.

Christopher Lee has given outstanding performances in a lot of cheesy films. The same can be said for Peter Cushing. I don't think the Hammer films would have been as good without serious, capable actors in the starring roles.

Christopher Plummer is another one. Anyone seen him in Star Crash? The whole movie was a joke, but his performance shone. Actually, his whole purpose was to class up the movie by his mere presence. He had a very small part, but his name was pretty prominent.

I've seen Patrick Stewart do a decent job in some straight-to-video stuff as well.

Actually, I'd say most big-name actors with a Shakespearean background can class up a film. Bill Shatner is the exception, although he always makes a movie fun to watch.

Throw in Sean Connery as well, though his only "b-movie" role, IIRC, was in Zardoz.

What about "Outland" raj?

I love Lee's performance in "Rasputin: The Mad Monk." Bad movie, but Lee plays Rasputin as a complete badass, storming into town, drinking, sleeping with farmers' daughters, lopping off people's hands, and speaking every line as if it had three exclamation points and boldface. Gotta love it.

I like Outland.  It was one of the first DVDs I bought.  Yes it is slow paced (a bit more so than High Noon) but I find it a refreshing alternative to big explosions in space.  Not to mention, you learn why you should not use a high powered rifle in a domed space colony.

-James Woods. Had he not been in John Carpenter's Vampires it would have been a complete turkey. He couldn't save Scary Movie 2, but I blame that on the seven related writers.

Glad someone else mentioned Cushing and Lee. A great tag team matchup, no matter the cheese. Ditto Ian Holm, and i'd add Nichole Williamson. Great hammy voice. His line reads as Merlin were a ball.
....How about John Caradine? He fits the mode of the working B actor.
...."No script too silly, no story too bizzare. Eh, its a liveing."...can just hear that great voice now....

>Throw in Sean Connery as well, though his only "b-movie" role, IIRC, was in
>Zardoz.

 Umm, Highlander 2: The Sickening?

>I like Outland. It was one of the first DVDs I bought.

 I liked Outland too, but the technical goofs bugged me. It was supposed to be a realistic movie, but yet the gravity inside is normal Earth gravity while outside people can just go floating around.

Does Outland qualify as a B-movie?  Connery and Peter Boyle were pretty big names by that point, the effects were good (though unambitious), the script was well written, and it was critically acclaimed as I recall.  Don't know what the budget was, but I think that's the only measure by which it might have been a B-movie.  That and it seemed to be a sleeper in theaters and video stores.  I find a distressingly large number of people didn't see it and don't remember it.

George Kennedy.  


Really.

John wrote:
>
> >Throw in Sean Connery as well, though his only "b-movie"
> role, IIRC, was in
> >Zardoz.
>
>  Umm, Highlander 2: The Sickening?

I'm still waiting to be given enough money to watch Highlander 2

> >I like Outland. It was one of the first DVDs I bought.
>
>  I liked Outland too, but the technical goofs bugged me. It
> was supposed to be a realistic movie, but yet the gravity
> inside is normal Earth gravity while outside people can just
> go floating around.
I thought (though I could be wrong) they had some anti-gravity thing, or else it was magnetic shoes & floors.  Usually I'll give a sf movie one of those things, such as artificial gravity or FTL ships.  The further removed from our time, the more leeway I'll grant the flimmakers.  Unless it's a completely silly movie such as Flash Gordon.  Then it's screw the science.

The further removed from our time, the more leeway I'll grant the flimmakers

That's what I didn't like about "Demolition Man".  The technology didn't bother me, but they did not allow nearly enough time for the social changes required in the movie.  The prison warden was born in 1969.  *I* was born in 1969.  For such radical changes in social norms would require at least several generations, but probably longer.

I like Outland to. But it has that b-movie feel to it.(Which is welcome)

Yes. I was a little puzzled by some of the older cops being surprised by Phoenix. Only one of them appeared to be familiar with him. Chief George Earl calling Spartan a caveman was very puzzling too, since he had to be in his 50s. Doesn't quite add up.

The only thing I could come up with, in the way of excuses, is that the people in positions of authority are the people who, in the present, would be considered excessively PC. We do have them. The warden, being an employee of Dr. Cocteau, would probably also have to subscribe to the same ideology.

In truth, I think Demolotion Man was simply holding a mirror on society at the time it was made. I wouldn't put it in the same league as stories like Fahrenheit 451 or 1984 (the books, not the movies), but it similarly takes the trends the writer sees in the present day and presents a future in which they have continued and worsened.

Still, there was no reason Demolition Man couldn't have taken place 200 years in the future, except maybe that they wanted to keep the sci-fi element to a minimum, have the architect of the society still alive and well, and still have a few folks nostalgic for the good old days.

The early 90s was when we had that great PC backlash, which brought us movies like PCU, Falling Down and Demolition Man.

Andy C said:

>I would name James Earl Jones, but I can't, off the top of my head  remember him in anything too cheesy.<

If it helps, he was in a bit role in the movie Meteor Man with Robert Townsend.

--------------------------------------------------------
From evey1 in NYC, c-ya

>I thought (though I could be wrong) they had some anti-gravity thing, or else it
>was magnetic shoes & floors.

 Maybe, but it still doesn't explain why everything outside is in slow motion, but inside everything seems normal. The only explanation I can come up with is that the filmmakers didn't have a lot of technical knowledge and just assumed that anything taking place in a vacuum on a moon should look like the spacewalk scenes we're all used to.

>>I would name James Earl Jones, but I can't, off the top of my head remember
>>him in anything too cheesy.<
>
>If it helps, he was in a bit role in the movie Meteor Man with Robert Townsend.

 Darn, how'd I miss this one?

 James Earl Jone in a cheesy movie? How about Conan?

John wrote:
>
> >I thought (though I could be wrong) they had some
> anti-gravity thing, or else it
> >was magnetic shoes & floors.
>
>  Maybe, but it still doesn't explain why everything outside
> is in slow motion, but inside everything seems normal. The
> only explanation I can come up with is that the filmmakers
> didn't have a lot of technical knowledge and just assumed
> that anything taking place in a vacuum on a moon should look
> like the spacewalk scenes we're all used to.

Hmm, I'll have to watch it again this weekend.  I thought the outside stuff was slow because they were moving around in bulky space suits.

>Hmm, I'll have to watch it again this weekend. I thought the outside stuff was slow >because they were moving around in bulky space suits.

 Let me know when you do. In a realistic movie, things inside should behave just like things outside, but they don't.

Roddy McDowell!
....Even a Golem can't upstage him!

Demolition Man was CLEARLY a satire of both 1990's style political correctness and 1980's movie violence.  There were some obvious lapses in plausibility of the great social change (and the museum with LIVE AMMO)...

But all these things pale in comparison to Sylvester Stallone's completely serious and straight-faced use of the words: "Hunka-Chunka" as a euphamism for sexual intercourse.  Quite possibly the most hilarious line in film history.

Dano wrote:
>
> Demolition Man was CLEARLY a satire of both 1990's style
> political correctness and 1980's movie violence.

Well put.  In a way, it was an exaggeration of Sly's own situation as an 80's action hero finding himself in the "kinder, gentler" early 90s.

His attempts at comedy were, unfortunately, not well received. I personally though both Demolition Man and Oscar were hilarious.