Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 1:57:12 GMT
I think Julianne Moore must say "yes" to literally every project that's offered to her... And why? She can't possibly need the money. For every one Far from Heaven, there are at least two Seventh Sons.
Related question - do you feel a lack of "selectiveness" when choosing film projects tarnishes acting legacies at all? I do think Moore is generally considered one of the greatest working actors despite the questionable spots on her CV...
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 14, 2019 3:20:33 GMT
Gary Oldman easily.
Incredible actor, but sometimes I think he's making and picking movies simply to fund Douglas Urbanski's (his agent/manager) drug habit or something.
Was hoping his Oscar win would improve things, but he's still turning up in stuff like Hunter Killer.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 14, 2019 3:21:18 GMT
Nicolas Cage, even if he has more great films than people give him credit for.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Mar 14, 2019 4:16:54 GMT
This is a topic I've been thinking about a bit while watching some stuff from early cinema. Lon Chaney starred in lots of great movies but also a ton of bad ones, although I haven't seen any that I would straight up call "dreck". The recurring theme is that no matter the quality of the movie Chaney always delivered, many times giving a performance much better than the movie he's in deserves.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 14, 2019 8:19:31 GMT
Well I would argue that of course it doesn't matter (to me) much - if (the adequate) Ewan McGregor appeared in 100 great movies in a row that doesn't make him Anthony Hopkins and if Hopkins appeared in 100 porn films in a row (shudder) he never stops being the great Anthony Hopkins. To me it factors somewhere between "doesn't matter at all" and "matters only when it reveals the actors limitations" it basically is BS "brand protecting" stuff and I loathe that talk about actors "brands". But one where it somewhat matters I think is the Nic Cage of his day ...........Christopher Walken. I mean that filmography is .............something else, the great stuff seems an accident almost, even now he can be great out of nowhere and no one would doubt it and no one one is quite comparable to him..........he's had an insanely long career, no one argues that it is ever his fault when he's not great or the projects not - in fact he acts in such a way as to blur the lines between his thing and the thing he's appearing in, we probably never saw 1/10th or maybe 1/100th of his actual talent on film, his entire career is a testament to wtf'ery and randomness. God Bless him......he makes a mockery of filmography in almost a performance art way. I literally can assess all kinds of actors but he's one even I am baffled by how good of an actor he actually is......
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Mar 14, 2019 11:13:28 GMT
Related question - do you feel a lack of "selectiveness" when choosing film projects tarnishes acting legacies at all? I do think Moore is generally considered one of the greatest working actors despite the questionable spots on her CV... Not to me, no. I can understand why a Daniel Day-Lewis like selectivity where even when he's done (in the last 25 years anyway) bad stuff it's been 'serious', prestige-y stuff would lead to at least more casual film watching people to think of him higher, but if you've done a lot of good work then you've done a lot of good work. The bad stuff doesn't take away from it, and being 'bad' is better than being boring, and very few genuinely great ones are ever often that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 13:13:47 GMT
Related question - do you feel a lack of "selectiveness" when choosing film projects tarnishes acting legacies at all? I do think Moore is generally considered one of the greatest working actors despite the questionable spots on her CV... Not to me, no. I can understand why a Daniel Day-Lewis like selectivity where even when he's done (in the last 25 years anyway) bad stuff it's been 'serious', prestige-y stuff would lead to at least more casual film watching people to think of him higher, but if you've done a lot of good work then you've done a lot of good work. The bad stuff doesn't take away from it, and being 'bad' is better than being boring, and very few genuinely great ones are ever often that. So in your estimation, the legacies of De Niro, Jane Fonda, Pacino, and Diane Keaton are completely unscathed?
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Mar 14, 2019 14:00:57 GMT
Not to me, no. I can understand why a Daniel Day-Lewis like selectivity where even when he's done (in the last 25 years anyway) bad stuff it's been 'serious', prestige-y stuff would lead to at least more casual film watching people to think of him higher, but if you've done a lot of good work then you've done a lot of good work. The bad stuff doesn't take away from it, and being 'bad' is better than being boring, and very few genuinely great ones are ever often that. So in your estimation, the legacies of De Niro, Jane Fonda, Pacino, and Diane Keaton are completely unscathed? Legacy, what is a legacy? Who cares about some notes at the beginning of a song someone else will sing when the song is still being written? I think in the end the crap washes away, and only the good remains. I don't think less of any of those peoples good work because they've done so much bad, no.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Mar 14, 2019 15:48:54 GMT
Ben Kingsley. Just take a gander at some many of the films he's been in, I'll wait...
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Mar 14, 2019 16:28:55 GMT
Kingsley and Malkovich.
They're just doing everything that falls infront of them.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,388
Likes: 1,270
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Mar 14, 2019 17:38:57 GMT
I know she's not yet there but Naomi Watts and contemporaries like Moore or Diane Lane, especially the last few years, but in my opinion also has to do with who is getting all those roles, there are some names always at the top of the list and in many cases I'm sure they look good on paper.
|
|
|
Post by Kirk-Picard on Mar 14, 2019 19:31:24 GMT
Post-2000 De Niro and Pacino
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Mar 14, 2019 19:36:38 GMT
Standing up for Nic Cage - for a guy with almost 100 movie credits, not even 1/4th of them are that bad like under 4 or 5/10, and it's only really recently that the trash is outpacing decent-or-better quality, and gonna mention he's in close to 15 movies that I'd rate 8/10 or more and that's pretty impressive.
I'm gonna name Eric Roberts - talk about dreck his imdb page is unfathomable madness, it's like an actual prank. This might cause a stir, but between 1980-85 I might just rank him #2 behind De Niro as the best or most exciting American actor. That good. After that, whoa boy - but to everyone (including myself) who thought his talent is totally lost, his scene in Inherent Vice is a terrific little acting performance, and it's just one scene!
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Mar 14, 2019 19:38:43 GMT
Standing up for Nic Cage - for a guy with almost 100 movie credits, not even 1/4th of them are that bad like under 4 or 5/10, and it's only really recently that the trash is outpacing decent-or-better quality, and gonna mention he's in close to 15 movies that I'd rate 8/10 or more and that's pretty impressive. I'm glad you stood up for him, even though I nominated him here -- I just went for an actor who gets an undeserved "bad rap" as an acting talent for a perceived bad catalogue, even though there isn't an actor alive with a better roster of great filmmakers he's worked with under his belt.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Mar 14, 2019 19:55:34 GMT
Post-2000 De Niro and Pacino Gotta make the argument, they shouldn't be grouped -- De Niro: 44 released movies, the standout projects or impressive, solid performances - Meet the Parents, Everybody's Fine, Silver Lining’s Playbook, American Hustle, Wizard of Lies... Pacino: 26 released movies - Chinese Coffee, Insomnia, Angels in America, Merchant of Venice, Ocean’s 13, You Don’t Know Jack, Phil Spector, Wilde Salome, The Humbling, Manglehorn, Danny Collins, Paterno - to add one more the not so good People I Know but worth seeing for his performance - now we’re at 13, that’s a .500 batting average re project or performance or both being worth your time. And if we were to extend "projects" (since we're technically talking résumé) to include theater then it's I think even higher. The comparison isn't even close!!!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 14, 2019 20:01:03 GMT
Standing up for Nic Cage - for a guy with almost 100 movie credits, not even 1/4th of them are that bad like under 4 or 5/10, and it's only really recently that the trash is outpacing decent-or-better quality, and gonna mention he's in close to 15 movies that I'd rate 8/10 or more and that's pretty impressive. I'm gonna name Eric Roberts - talk about dreck his imdb page is unfathomable madness, it's like an actual prank. This might cause a stir, but between 1980-85 I might just rank him #2 behind De Niro as the best or most exciting American actor. That good. After that, whoa boy - but to everyone (including myself) who thought his talent is totally lost, his scene in Inherent Vice is a terrific little acting performance, and it's just one scene! People do not rate Eric Roberts highly enough for a thread titled "Greatest Actor...." to namecheck him. I do agree that Roberts had a promising start, but no one has even mentioned his friend and contemporary Mickey Rourke, who for most, rates higher and achieved more. And Rourke has a tonne of crap on his filmography
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Mar 14, 2019 20:11:22 GMT
Standing up for Nic Cage - for a guy with almost 100 movie credits, not even 1/4th of them are that bad like under 4 or 5/10, and it's only really recently that the trash is outpacing decent-or-better quality, and gonna mention he's in close to 15 movies that I'd rate 8/10 or more and that's pretty impressive. I'm gonna name Eric Roberts - talk about dreck his imdb page is unfathomable madness, it's like an actual prank. This might cause a stir, but between 1980-85 I might just rank him #2 behind De Niro as the best or most exciting American actor. That good. After that, whoa boy - but to everyone (including myself) who thought his talent is totally lost, his scene in Inherent Vice is a terrific little acting performance, and it's just one scene! People do not rate Eric Roberts highly enough for a thread titled "Greatest Actor...." to namecheck him. I do agree that Roberts had a promising start, but no one has even mentioned his friend and contemporary Mickey Rourke, who for most, rates higher and achieved more. And Rourke has a tonne of crap on his filmography I hear ya, I just took the question differently - instead of looking at the best actors with the most dreck, I thought who's got the most dreck that's actually, or at least at some point was, quite talented. Close enough! To take my twist and name some others: Donald Pleasence, Rutger Hauer.....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Mar 14, 2019 20:13:06 GMT
Post-2000 De Niro and Pacino Gotta make the argument, they shouldn't be grouped -- De Niro: 44 released movies, the standout projects or impressive, solid performances - Meet the Parents, Everybody's Fine, Silver Lining’s Playbook, American Hustle, Wizard of Lies... Pacino: 26 released movies - Chinese Coffee, Insomnia, Angels in America, Merchant of Venice, Ocean’s 13, You Don’t Know Jack, Phil Spector, Wilde Salome, The Humbling, Manglehorn, Danny Collins, Paterno - to add one more the not so good People I Know but worth seeing for his performance - now we’re at 13, that’s a .500 batting average re project or performance or both being worth your time. And if we were to extend "projects" (since we're technically talking résumé) to include theater then it's I think even higher. The comparison isn't even close!!! Just want to include Stand Up Guys which is one that is personally close to my heart - nothing great more like fair to middling, but ......I like it a good bit myself and he's quite good (Walken is even better)
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Mar 14, 2019 20:27:50 GMT
Donald Sutherland comes to mind. Especially his 1980s period.
Recently, Jeremy Irons seems to not pick his projects carefully.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Mar 15, 2019 2:18:49 GMT
Oldman
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Mar 15, 2019 3:26:26 GMT
Not that she's the greatest or anything, but Nicole Kidman easily. Her career is pretty much a nightmare post-2004. I can't decide if her nadir is her double punch 2011 of Just Go With It and Trespass, or her Oscar contender Cannes debuting film Grace of Monaco ending up on Lifetime. And then in 2016/2017 she undeniably had a resurgence with a hit tv show, a filler oscar nomination, and a few warmly received if forgotten art films.
She certainly hasn't been in a Best Picture winner, or a film largely regarded as the best of the century, but her 1999-2003 run was pretty cute I guess.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Mar 15, 2019 3:29:25 GMT
Not that she's the greatest or anything, but Nicole Kidman easily. Her career is pretty much a nightmare post-2004. I can't decide if her nadir is her double punch 2011 of Just Go With It and Trespass, or her Oscar contender Cannes debuting film Grace of Monaco ending up on Lifetime. And then in 2016/2017 she undeniably had a resurgence with a hit tv show, a filler oscar nomination, and a few warmly received if forgotten art films. She certainly hasn't been in a Best Picture winner, or a film largely regarded as the best of the century, but her 2001-2003 run was pretty cute I guess. You're ridiculous.
|
|
wattsnew
Full Member
Posts: 712
Likes: 347
|
Post by wattsnew on Mar 15, 2019 3:53:29 GMT
Not that she's the greatest or anything, but Nicole Kidman easily. Her career is pretty much a nightmare post-2004. I can't decide if her nadir is her double punch 2011 of Just Go With It and Trespass, or her Oscar contender Cannes debuting film Grace of Monaco ending up on Lifetime. And then in 2016/2017 she undeniably had a resurgence with a hit tv show, a filler oscar nomination, and a few warmly received if forgotten art films. She certainly hasn't been in a Best Picture winner, or a film largely regarded as the best of the century, but her 2001-2003 run was pretty cute I guess. You're ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Mar 15, 2019 13:42:19 GMT
Not that she's the greatest or anything, but Nicole Kidman easily. Her career is pretty much a nightmare post-2004. I can't decide if her nadir is her double punch 2011 of Just Go With It and Trespass, or her Oscar contender Cannes debuting film Grace of Monaco ending up on Lifetime. And then in 2016/2017 she undeniably had a resurgence with a hit tv show, a filler oscar nomination, and a few warmly received if forgotten art films. She certainly hasn't been in a Best Picture winner, or a film largely regarded as the best of the century, but her 1999-2003 run was pretty cute I guess. It's hard to take this seriously when your signature features an actress who eats garbage films for breakfast.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Mar 15, 2019 14:41:55 GMT
Since I was lucky to caught this absolute Masterpiece on TV recently (the Blu-Ray is obviously on it's way to home, can't wait !), 2 great actors who have also a more than enough number of bad films and they always get away with it, people don't care (maybe because as great as they are, they aren't topping "best actor of the world" list often enough) or people are not aware........because others people don't talk about it enough . Everybody is aware than Gary Oldman has a lot of bad films, it's in the air but how many people have actually watched most of these movies ? I skipped to some of them myself (even if I love the dude). You go on IMDB, see a 4,7 rating, you know, I love you Gary but next ! I never had problem with actors making bad/mediocre films, it's actors repeatedly being bad/mediocre in them that I have problem with and sometimes makes me question their real acting skills levels. History of film has shown than any mediocre actor can gives a great, oscar worthy performances with the right material, director, etc... However being able to repeatedly delivers in bad/mediocre film (material) is another story, only a rare breed of actors are able to do it and they deserves props for it and, to me, it often becomes a flaw to those you can't.
|
|