I Hate Big-Name Actors! Am I Alone On This?

WilliamWeird1313 · January 17, 2009, 01:49:29 PM

Quote from: The DarkSider on January 04, 2009, 12:25:32 PM

Adam Sandler (I don't think I've ever laughed at him)

Least funny man to ever work in comedy films. Yes, I'm even counting Paulie Shore. All of his "jokes" are just him making stupid gibberish noises. Ugh.

AndyC · January 17, 2009, 11:13:19 PM

Adam Sandler is hit and miss for me. Some of his movies I really enjoyed, but others I haven't. It's been years since I've even gone out of my way to see one. I'd say his movies have gotten less enjoyable the more successful he's gotten, and the more he's tried to act. Put him in a ridiculous lowbrow comedy, playing some insane yet good-hearted loser, and surround him with guys like Clint Howard and Rob Schneider playing equally off-the-wall characters, and I will probably like it. I haven't enjoyed Sandler any time he's aimed higher than that.

Jim H · January 18, 2009, 04:14:21 PM

I don't have any problem with big name actors in concept, and very rarely does it hurt suspension of disbelief for me. Actors can dominate a film of course, but that's a fault of the film in many cases, not always the fault of the actor. I also don't think an actor dominating a film means it is inherently a bad movie either. Like, say, Malcolm McDowell dominates every scene in A Clockwork Orange, but it's still a great film.

I might also add that "star power" was a more important draw in Hollywood films 60 years ago and earlier than it is today. They could sell almost any film with two or three big names in it back then, which isn't the case now. They also built films around the available stars even more than now (perhaps that's an opinion, but it seems that way to me). It helps a lot to have big names now (obviously), but it doesn't guarantee anything.

So basically, I'd say it is actually LESS of an issue now than it once was.

Burgo, I'll also add I think it is funny that John Wayne is on your list. He plays the exact same part, in a larger than life sort of way, in almost every one of his many, many roles. I don't think any actor in the modern day has done it as extreme as he has. It's perhaps the worst in his war films, where apparently he was drafted from the streets of Dodge City. Not to say I don't enjoy his performances as well, for what they are.

bladerunnerblues · January 28, 2009, 03:27:13 AM

Quote from: Jim H on January 18, 2009, 04:14:21 PM
I don't have any problem with big name actors in concept, and very rarely does it hurt suspension of disbelief for me. Actors can dominate a film of course, but that's a fault of the film in many cases, not always the fault of the actor. I also don't think an actor dominating a film means it is inherently a bad movie either. Like, say, Malcolm McDowell dominates every scene in A Clockwork Orange, but it's still a great film.

I might also add that "star power" was a more important draw in Hollywood films 60 years ago and earlier than it is today. They could sell almost any film with two or three big names in it back then, which isn't the case now. They also built films around the available stars even more than now (perhaps that's an opinion, but it seems that way to me). It helps a lot to have big names now (obviously), but it doesn't guarantee anything.

So basically, I'd say it is actually LESS of an issue now than it once was.

Burgo, I'll also add I think it is funny that John Wayne is on your list. He plays the exact same part, in a larger than life sort of way, in almost every one of his many, many roles. I don't think any actor in the modern day has done it as extreme as he has. It's perhaps the worst in his war films, where apparently he was drafted from the streets of Dodge City. Not to say I don't enjoy his performances as well, for what they are.

I enoy westerns and I am a huge fan of Spaghetti Westerns but I think John Wayne is extremely over rated.
I think I have seen only 2 of his films,True Grit(watched it on TV at my grandparents)and I forget the name of the other.

Psycho Circus · January 28, 2009, 12:31:15 PM

Quote from: bladerunnerblues on January 28, 2009, 03:27:13 AM
Quote from: Jim H on January 18, 2009, 04:14:21 PM

Burgo, I'll also add I think it is funny that John Wayne is on your list. He plays the exact same part, in a larger than life sort of way, in almost every one of his many, many roles. I don't think any actor in the modern day has done it as extreme as he has. It's perhaps the worst in his war films, where apparently he was drafted from the streets of Dodge City. Not to say I don't enjoy his performances as well, for what they are.

I enoy westerns and I am a huge fan of Spaghetti Westerns but I think John Wayne is extremely over rated.
I think I have seen only 2 of his films,True Grit(watched it on TV at my grandparents)and I forget the name of the other.

I thought he was great in Rio Lobo, aside from Unforgiven it's my favourite western.

indianasmith · January 28, 2009, 02:09:24 PM

Some actors bring a certain amount of flair and panache to every role they undertake . .

like Sean Connery.

Others cast a wet blanket of boring over everything they touch -

Keanu Reeves.

However, some actors I truly admire incude:

Tom Hanks
Mel Gibson
Sam Neill
Gary Oldman

Some actresses that I will watch whether they can act or not:

Anne Hathaway
Cameron Diaz
Barbara Carrera
Michelle Pfeiffer

Kate · January 28, 2009, 02:11:16 PM

Quote from: indianasmith on January 28, 2009, 02:09:24 PM
Others cast a wet blanket of boring over everything they touch -

Keanu Reeves.

AndyC · January 29, 2009, 03:55:09 PM

Quote from: indianasmith on January 28, 2009, 02:09:24 PM
Some actors bring a certain amount of flair and panache to every role they undertake . .

like Sean Connery.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M4nrVMPVoTU

Rat-Bat-Spider · January 29, 2009, 09:31:48 PM

Wow, so I wasn't alone on this. It's hard to tell with all the responses in my way

But seriously, I don't think that adding big names is necessarily a bad thing. It's just that somebody should be famous for their performances, not who they happen to be intimate with at the time or what they're wearing or how they happen to be existing at any one particular time. I'm so sick of hearing about what people like Tom Cruise and Hugh Jackman do on their off time because that takes away from their job and makes them useless fodder for deadening conversation. And once you do that they start to become overly famous for no reason. When was the last time you recall Julia Roberts doing anything worthwhile as an actress? Never? Well, why do I still here about what she does and does not do outside of the studio? it's a vicious cycle, and I know that the hype machine is important to Hollywood's infrastructure, but it makes me physically ill sometimes to hear the banal details of a celebrity's life. So thank goodness for people like Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, actually performing well enough to be mentioned instead of wearing something lurid or saying something celebridiculous (HA!)

Kate · January 30, 2009, 03:01:38 PM

Quote from: Rat-Bat-Spider on January 29, 2009, 09:31:48 PM
So thank goodness for people like Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio, actually performing well enough to be mentioned instead of wearing something lurid or saying something celebridiculous (HA!)

Nice to hear someone praising Leo instead of bashing him. I'm not a huge fan myself, but I think he gets way too much crap for no reason (other than that he used to be "the pretty boy from Titanic").