|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 20, 2019 17:45:10 GMT
I believe none of these sequels will ever happen. I think they are useless and they'll maybe "harm" the originals.
Seems that the major studios don't care anymore about casting guys like Murphy, De Vito or other comedians in their 60s and 70s. Murphy has only made one film in the last 7 years (which I liked actually) and this year returns with a biopic (which seems that can be quite good and his opportunity for a big come back) and none of the two is a comedy. De Vito, apart from Sunny, is having small roles in awful comedies.
Maybe I'm missing something here but these guys, along with people like Steve Martin, Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Jim Carrey who used to be big box office draws, nowadays are not needed by the studios. The actors doing comedy on film are mostly Carell, Ferrell, Sandler, Stiller...
Even Carrey had many years to be in anything before turning to television.
Maybe the studios don't count on comedy to make tickets and why should they? They're too busy making super hero/ comic books stuff.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 20, 2019 18:14:36 GMT
I believe none of these sequels will ever happen. I think they are useless and they'll maybe "harm" the originals. Seems that the major studios don't care anymore about casting guys like Murphy, De Vito or other comedians in their 60s and 70s. Murphy has only made one film in the last 7 years (which I liked actually) and this year returns with a biopic (which seems that can be quite good and his opportunity for a big come back) and none of the two is a comedy. De Vito, apart from Sunny, is having small roles in awful comedies. Maybe I'm missing something here but these guys, along with people like Steve Martin, Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Jim Carrey who used to be big box office draws, nowadays are not needed by the studios. The actors doing comedy on film are mostly Carell, Ferrell, Sandler, Stiller... Even Carrey had many years to be in anything before turning to television. Maybe the studios don't count on comedy to make tickets and why should they? They're too busy making super hero/ comic books stuff. Coming To America 2 is already in production. Netflix want to pay Murphy 70 million dollars to do one comedy special
Studios are definitely back in the Eddie Murphy business. He's a permanent A-lister. And like therealcomicman117 said, enough time has passed since some of his bigger flops, that it's almost been wiped from studio execs memories.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jul 20, 2019 19:05:31 GMT
I believe none of these sequels will ever happen. I think they are useless and they'll maybe "harm" the originals. Seems that the major studios don't care anymore about casting guys like Murphy, De Vito or other comedians in their 60s and 70s. Murphy has only made one film in the last 7 years (which I liked actually) and this year returns with a biopic (which seems that can be quite good and his opportunity for a big come back) and none of the two is a comedy. De Vito, apart from Sunny, is having small roles in awful comedies. Maybe I'm missing something here but these guys, along with people like Steve Martin, Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Jim Carrey who used to be big box office draws, nowadays are not needed by the studios. The actors doing comedy on film are mostly Carell, Ferrell, Sandler, Stiller... Even Carrey had many years to be in anything before turning to television. Maybe the studios don't count on comedy to make tickets and why should they? They're too busy making super hero/ comic books stuff. Coming To America 2 is already in production. Netflix want to pay Murphy 70 million dollars to do one comedy special
Studios are definitely back in the Eddie Murphy business. He's a permanent A-lister. And like therealcomicman117 said, enough time has passed since some of his bigger flops, that it's almost been wiped from studio execs memories. Well, it took 7 years of (almost total) absence from the movies for the studios to wipe his earlier flops... How do you know CTA 2 is really in production? I mean, if imdb says it, then it doesn't mean much. A hell lot of films are supposedly "in production" for imdb but they never get off the ground. But if you know it's indeed happening, ok. I consider it useless but who knows, maybe it'll be good and do fine in b.o. Permanent A-lister? For sure he wasn't an A-lister since Dreamgirls and if Dolemite is really good, then I have no doubt he'll be back in the A-list. But that's not "permanent". If he gets 70 mil for a special doesn't mean he's an A-lister, at least regarding to the movie industry. Adam Sandler will get 250 mil in order to make 4 Netflix movies (or something like that, I don't exactly remember, apologies if I'm wrong). It's Sandler we're talking about... Sandler!! Not Murphy, not DDL, not Di Caprio or Downey f**ng Junior. SANDLER!! Netflix toss their money and Murphy is the king of stand-up comedies/ comedy specials. So why not? But Netflix is a streaming platform. For the movie industry, Murphy (just like the other guys I mentioned before) isn't a major movie star anymore. Maybe he'll become again after Dolemite, maybe Netflix will help him recover. But for the last 12-13 years, he's not.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 21, 2019 19:41:25 GMT
Harrison Ford Genre: Legal Thrillers
Now here’s a guy, despite being in some of the biggest franchises and movies, but doesn’t get enough credit for his performances, or influence. While it’s easy to associate Ford with Indiana Jones, and Han Solo, there’s one particular type of film that he did quite a bit, and quite well, that of the legal thrillers. Now revisiting Ford’s filmography recently, I realized that he played a lot of authority figures, and probably none so more than in the legal thriller genre. Take Witness for example in which Ford convincingly plays a police detective who hides in Amish Country to protect a young boy, or Presumed Innocent in which he plays a lawyer trapped in a web of deceit and lies.
Now it’s true that Ford was cast in these movies, in part because they needed a reliably name to get audiences in the theaters, but also I feel he perfectly captures the stern withdrawn feeling of these figures that we’re also supposed to admire or maybe root for, but are also very flawed. This sort of feeling seem to drip in other Ford roles, like him playing a lawyer who loses his memory in Regarding Henry, or as CIA agent Jack Ryan. Heck Richard Kimmell in The Fugitive plays by many similar rules to other Ford roles as well.
Ford’s “legal thrillers”, were one of the reasons why for the longest time I wasn’t happy with calling him an “action hero”. Sure he did action movies, but not in the Stallone / Schwarzenegger vein, excluding Air Force One, and it’s why when he was cast in The Expendables 3 (the movie turned out to be a dud, but I digress), I was against it. He’s not an “action action” hero in the traditional sense, he’s more of a thriller star, who just happens to do movies that have often have big climactic setpieces. It’s something that he does exceedingly well at.
I think Ford plays these authority figures well, because in part, it’s believable that he could be successful as a lawyer, or a doctor, or a policeman. He’s “good-looking” in the traditional sense, but he’s also rough, and gravelly sounding at the same time. I think it’s what makes him so appealing as a performer. He can be an asshole, but you like him.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 21, 2019 22:48:13 GMT
Harrison FordGenre: Legal Thrillers Now here’s a guy, despite being in some of the biggest franchises and movies, but doesn’t get enough credit for his performances, or influence. While it’s easy to associate Ford with Indiana Jones, and Han Solo, there’s one particular type of film that he did quite a bit, and quite well, that of the legal thrillers. Now revisiting Ford’s filmography recently, I realized that he played a lot of authority figures, and probably none so more than in the legal thriller genre. Take Witness for example in which Ford convincingly plays a police detective who hides in Amish Country to protect a young boy, or Presumed Innocent in which he plays a lawyer trapped in a web of deceit and lies. Now it’s true that Ford was cast in these movies, in part because they needed a reliably name to get audiences in the theaters, but also I feel he perfectly captures the stern withdrawn feeling of these figures that we’re also supposed to admire or maybe root for, but are also very flawed. This sort of feeling seem to drip in other Ford roles, like him playing a lawyer who loses his memory in Regarding Henry, or as CIA agent Jack Ryan. Heck Richard Kimmell in The Fugitive plays by many similar rules to other Ford roles as well. Ford’s “legal thrillers”, were one of the reasons why for the longest time I wasn’t happy with calling him an “action hero”. Sure he did action movies, but not in the Stallone / Schwarzenegger vein, excluding Air Force One, and it’s why he was cast in The Expendables 3 (the movie turned out to be a dud, but I digress), I was against it. He’s not an “action action” hero in the traditional sense, he’s more of a thriller star, who just happens to do movies that have often have big climactic setpieces. It’s something that he does exceedingly well at. I think Ford plays these authority figures well, because in part, it’s believable that he could be successful as a lawyer, or a doctor, or a policeman. He’s “good-looking” in the traditional sense, but he’s also rough, and gravelly sounding at the same time. I think it’s what makes him so appealing as a performer. He can be an asshole, but you like him. I agree that Ford, outside of the Indiana Jones and Star Wars films, where he is a conventional action hero, tended to pretty much subvert the concept of being the "hero" in action films. It was an extremely canny way to avoid a very specific type of typecasting (ie, he didn't want to become Stallone). He's often the lead in action movies, playing men who are not neccesarily men of action. Even his Jack Ryan, which could easily be another Bond or Bourne is defined more by his skills as data analyst than as some sort of badass agent. So the legal thriller was perfect fit for Ford's career strategem. He could make movies with action setpieces that attracted big audiences, but also make films that have enough of a dramatic quality to allow people to feel they are watching something fairly smart. In Ford's hands, the legal thriller essentially becomes the thinking man's action movie.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 21, 2019 23:08:04 GMT
Harrison FordGenre: Legal Thrillers Now here’s a guy, despite being in some of the biggest franchises and movies, but doesn’t get enough credit for his performances, or influence. While it’s easy to associate Ford with Indiana Jones, and Han Solo, there’s one particular type of film that he did quite a bit, and quite well, that of the legal thrillers. Now revisiting Ford’s filmography recently, I realized that he played a lot of authority figures, and probably none so more than in the legal thriller genre. Take Witness for example in which Ford convincingly plays a police detective who hides in Amish Country to protect a young boy, or Presumed Innocent in which he plays a lawyer trapped in a web of deceit and lies. Now it’s true that Ford was cast in these movies, in part because they needed a reliably name to get audiences in the theaters, but also I feel he perfectly captures the stern withdrawn feeling of these figures that we’re also supposed to admire or maybe root for, but are also very flawed. This sort of feeling seem to drip in other Ford roles, like him playing a lawyer who loses his memory in Regarding Henry, or as CIA agent Jack Ryan. Heck Richard Kimmell in The Fugitive plays by many similar rules to other Ford roles as well. Ford’s “legal thrillers”, were one of the reasons why for the longest time I wasn’t happy with calling him an “action hero”. Sure he did action movies, but not in the Stallone / Schwarzenegger vein, excluding Air Force One, and it’s why he was cast in The Expendables 3 (the movie turned out to be a dud, but I digress), I was against it. He’s not an “action action” hero in the traditional sense, he’s more of a thriller star, who just happens to do movies that have often have big climactic setpieces. It’s something that he does exceedingly well at. I think Ford plays these authority figures well, because in part, it’s believable that he could be successful as a lawyer, or a doctor, or a policeman. He’s “good-looking” in the traditional sense, but he’s also rough, and gravelly sounding at the same time. I think it’s what makes him so appealing as a performer. He can be an asshole, but you like him. I agree that Ford, outside of the Indiana Jones and Star Wars films, where he is a conventional action hero, tended to pretty much subvert the concept of being the "hero" in action films. It was an extremely canny way to avoid a very specific type of typecasting (ie, he didn't want to become Stallone). He's often the lead in action movies, playing men who are not neccesarily men of action. Even his Jack Ryan, which could easily be another Bond or Bourne is defined more by his skills as data analyst than as some sort of badass agent. So the legal thriller was perfect fit for Ford's career strategem. He could make movies with action stepieved that attracted big audiences, but also make films that have enough of a dramatic quality to allow people to feel they are watching something fairly smart. In Fit's hands, the legal thriller essentially becomes the thinking man's action movie. That's an excellent way of putting it. I don't think Ford ever wanted to be an "action hero" in the traditional sense. He simply had his breakthrough, and was discovered because of genre works, and that was more reflected in his film choices, after Temple of Doom. I think what I like most about his work from that era is the variety. Movies like The Mosquito Coast and Frantic were very challenging parts, when he could have just done some "kick-ass cop movie", or something. Those legal thrillers were indeed a good "middle-ground", where he could please the audiences, but also play smarter more intelligent characters. Another reason that I think Ford is different, is that he never really went the extra mile and actually got buff, nor did he ever take a role that would ever require him to do so. Sure he's fit, even still now, but when you think a lot of those action stars back then and even now, muscular is probably one of the first things that comes to mind, even Snipes got ripped for the Blade films. Ford is not muscular, in fact he's quite "thin", which probably makes him appear a lot more "down to earth".
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 23, 2019 8:44:57 GMT
Bette Davis
Genre: Grande Dame Guignol (Psychological Horror)
Bette Davis was a great actress that had a couple of really distinct career shifts. One of them occurred as she was (according to Hollywood of the day)aging out of roles that might have any perceived glamor to them. Never regarded as a great beauty in the first place, Davis lack of onscreen vanity made her particularly suited to Grande Dame Guignol, a horror sub-genre in film (patterned on the French theatre horror plays of the same name, minus the Dame) that Davis herself basically helped invent with Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? The crux of this sub-genre which took hold in the 1950's was to take great female stars who might be politely considered to be "washed up" in the industry due to their fading glamor, and have them play psychotic old ladies to terrify audiences.
As a genre, it was very much in the exploitation mould, and while some might argue there was a certain lack of dignity in these great stars ( among them Olivia De Haviland, Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck and Tallulah Bankhead) taking on these films and roles, Davis applied all her formidable talent to these parts to bring a certain level of pathos to these demented characters. These roles sustained her as an actress for a fair bit (from Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte to The Nanny), and she was pretty much the reigning queen of a disreputable genre. But it gave her at least one of her greatest ro led (Baby Jane), and in many ways added to her legacy. Below is Davis singing the creepiest musical number as Baby Jane:
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 24, 2019 1:36:54 GMT
Bette Davis certainly had one of the best careers period, in Hollywood. She was always presented as a frumpy looking, but strong-willed woman in pictures like Now Voyager and The Little Foxes. It only made sense as she got older, that she would play more "craggy crazy old ladies", especially when paired up with other legendary older actresses around her era such as Joan Crawford, or Olivia DeHavilland. The movies feature over the top performances, but that's what makes them so great and fun to watch. Something like Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? wouldn't work as well, if the actresses weren't at least rivals in real life to a certain extent. Really it's psychological horror at its best.
One of my favorites of her from that period, that often gets overlooked is Dead Ringer, in which she plays scheming twins. Her performance is so calculating and brilliant, that I think she was worthy of an Oscar nom at least. Movie also features a great theme by the late Andre Previn too.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 24, 2019 11:49:53 GMT
Bette Davis certainly had one of the best careers period, in Hollywood. She was always presented as a frumpy looking, but strong-willed woman in pictures like Now Voyager and The Little Foxes. Oh, Davis is an absolute GOAT contender among actresses, not just the Grande dame of the psycho-biddy genre. Of that Golden Age crop, I put her in a category with Vivien Leigh, Barbara Stanwyck, Ingrid Bergman and Katherine Hepburn.... The most elite of performers for that era. Davis pound for pound may have been the very best of them, though Leigh had the single best film performance of any of them ( Gone With The Wind) and probably the best stage career, while Hepburn had the longevity and the Streep-ian awards dominance.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 24, 2019 16:02:49 GMT
Bette Davis certainly had one of the best careers period, in Hollywood. She was always presented as a frumpy looking, but strong-willed woman in pictures like Now Voyager and The Little Foxes. Oh, Davis is an absolute GOAT contender among actresses, not just the Grande dame of the psycho-biddy genre. Of that Golden Age crop, I put her in a category with Vivien Leigh, Barbara Stanwyck, Ingrid Bergman and Katherine Hepburn.... The most elite of performers for that era. Davis pound for pound may have been the very best of them, though Leigh had the single best film performance of any of them ( Gone With The Wind) and probably the best stage career, while Hepburn had the longevity and the Streep-ian awards dominance. Yup, she probably took on the most challenging roles too, of that era, such as Of Human Bondage, and Dark Victory. Of course she did a lot of weepies, but she was a great enough actress to make them come off as convincing. Revisiting her filmography over the past five years or so, has been one rewarding experience.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 24, 2019 17:25:32 GMT
Rutger HauerGenre: Science Fiction/FantasyThe great blonde Dutchman has just passed away, so it felt fitting to give him a bit of a tribute. Hauer burst onto our collective consciousness with his role as the replicant Roy Batty in the hugely influential science fiction masterpiece Blade Runner. From his ice cold Nordic looks to his inescapable screen presence, Hauer arguably stole the movie from it's nominal star Harrison Ford, in the same way Christopher Walken (In some ways a similar actor to Hauer) took a lot of the shine in The Deer Hunter from Robert DeNiro (who was still great in it).
While Hauer went onto be incredibly prolific (174 credits on his IMDB), Blade Runner remained his high water mark and calling card for the rest of his career. But because he was so damned good in that role, he was often called upon to lend his chilly presence to genre fare in the sci-fi or fantasy realm. Ladyhawke, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Merlin, The 10th Kingdom and Batman Begins all benefited greatly from his calm and collected reliability as a staple genre character actor. A unique screen presence. Below is Hauer at his brilliant best in Blade Runner
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 24, 2019 17:52:30 GMT
His death is very sad and unexpected, but at least he had a long and fruitful career as an actor.
Hauer actually began his career as a respected actor in The Netherlands. If you ever get the chance to see it, I highly recommend Paul Verhoeven's Soldier of Orange. A movie featuring two people (Hauer and Verhoeven), who went on to have successful careers in the English language, and watching that movie you can see why. I'm honestly surprised the two only worked together once after that, in Verhoeven's directing debut, the "rough historic epic", Flesh + Blood.
Really while Hauer could indeed be a great actor, and he was in plenty of big movies, he really seemed to find his calling card as B movie actor. Not so much in terms of his performances, but rather that he starred in a lot of routine low-budget action films, that were elevated by his presence in them. D.O.A., Split Second, Omega Doom, and my personal favorite the fun if not improbable Blind Fury, with a seriously underappreciated sword-fight sequence. I also thought he was terrific as a much more complex slasher villain in The Hitcher. When he did Sin City, and Batman Begins back to back, he was basically pulled out of the straight to DVD / European "limbo", that he had been in for a while at that point. At the time it was great to see, even my dad noted his performance in Begins.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 24, 2019 22:09:52 GMT
His death is very sad and unexpected, but at least he had a long and fruitful career as an actor. Hauer actually began his career as a respected actor in The Netherlands. If you ever get the chance to see it, I highly recommend Paul Verhoeven's Soldier of Orange. A movie featuring two people (Hauer and Verhoeven), who went on to have successful careers in the English language, and watching that movie you can see why. I'm honestly surprised the two only worked together once after that, in Verhoeven's directing debut, the "rough historic epic", Flesh + Blood. Really while Hauer could indeed be a great actor, and he was in plenty of big movies, he really seemed to find his calling card as B movie actor. Not so much in terms of his performances, but rather that he starred in a lot of routine low-budget action films, that were elevated by his presence in them. D.O.A., Split Second, Omega Doom, and my personal favorite the fun if not improbable Blind Fury, with a seriously underappreciated sword-fight sequence. I also thought he was terrific as a much more complex slasher villain in The Hitcher. When he did Sin City, and Batman Begins back to back, he was basically pulled out of the straight to DVD / European "limbo", that he had been in for a while at that point. At the time it was great to see, even my dad noted his performance in Begins. Had no clue about Hauer's prestige Dutch work. I'll make an effort to check it out. Thanks for the recommend. I have however seen Blind Fury many years ago, and loved it in all it's B-movie silliness. That clip you posted is probably going to inspire me to watch it again very soon.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 25, 2019 1:39:21 GMT
His death is very sad and unexpected, but at least he had a long and fruitful career as an actor. Hauer actually began his career as a respected actor in The Netherlands. If you ever get the chance to see it, I highly recommend Paul Verhoeven's Soldier of Orange. A movie featuring two people (Hauer and Verhoeven), who went on to have successful careers in the English language, and watching that movie you can see why. I'm honestly surprised the two only worked together once after that, in Verhoeven's directing debut, the "rough historic epic", Flesh + Blood. Really while Hauer could indeed be a great actor, and he was in plenty of big movies, he really seemed to find his calling card as B movie actor. Not so much in terms of his performances, but rather that he starred in a lot of routine low-budget action films, that were elevated by his presence in them. D.O.A., Split Second, Omega Doom, and my personal favorite the fun if not improbable Blind Fury, with a seriously underappreciated sword-fight sequence. I also thought he was terrific as a much more complex slasher villain in The Hitcher. When he did Sin City, and Batman Begins back to back, he was basically pulled out of the straight to DVD / European "limbo", that he had been in for a while at that point. At the time it was great to see, even my dad noted his performance in Begins. Had no clue about Hauer's prestige Dutch work. I'll make an effort to check it out. Thanks for the recommend. I have however seen Blind Fury many years ago, and loved it in all it's B-movie silliness. That clip you posted is probably going to inspire me to watch it again very soon. There's not a whole lot of it available to watch outside of the Verhoeven flicks, but he did a lot of work in Dutch obviously in the 70s. I believe it was the movie Spetters that got him the attention of Hollywood producers, and led him to be cast in his first major Hollywood film Nighthawks. Blind Fury is awesome, and recommend viewing. It's a great 90s western updating of those old slash / dice type samurai films. I particularly got a laugh out of seeing Hauer cutting-up a cantaloupe in an extremely exaggerated manner.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 26, 2019 4:15:25 GMT
Tom Hanks
Genre: Biopic
Can an actor be highly impactful in a genre, without being fundamentally suited to it? Tom Hanks may answer that question in the affirmative, when it comes to the biopic genre.
An iconic American movie star, Hanks for most of the peak period of his career, managed to avoid playing real life figures. Jim Lovell in Apollo 13 was one of the few ones he did in his 90's Tom Hanks-ian heyday.
Yet somehow, in the latter stages of his career, Hanks has turned himself into the biopic king. If there is a real life character in a movie, Hanks will find a way to shift himself into the part.
Here is the crux though. While Hanks can do really fine work in this genre, particularly when we have little idea what the real life person is like (Captain Philips), his inability to shake "Tom Hanks" from his system makes it a bit more problematic when he's playing more familiar real life characters. Watching Hanks as Walt Disney in Saving Mr Banks was a perfectly painless expescience, but not for one moment did Hanks ever feel like he disappeared into the role of Disney. Something about Hanks as an actor prevents him from achieving that type of total immersion in a biopic role. He has no Malcolm X. No Lincoln. Not even a Darkest Hour. Hanks in many ways is a great actor, but not neccesarily suited for competely disappearing into a recognisable real life person.
Yet today, he's cornered the biopic market. Great work if you can get it, and he's getting it. Next up for Hanks is Fred Rogers and Colonel Tom Parker. Here he is below as Ben Bradlee in The Post
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 26, 2019 4:57:29 GMT
That's a very interesting look at Hanks's recent career, although I will say I probably disagree a bit about him not transforming into those roles. I do think Hanks goes out of his way to try to at least pick up or imitate some of the mannerisms of those real-life people he's recently been playing, such as Richard Phillips, Ben Bradlee, and Chester Sullenberger. It's just that he's Hanks, so you can recognize him right away, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the most startling thing though about this recent development in his career for me, is when he finally decided to stop dying his hair, and stayed gray permanently after he did Sully. Shook me for days TBH.
I would say that Hanks recent stab at biopics might be a combination of age, and the roles he's probably being offered. It seems that he's now at his most successful when he plays real life people (Sully, Captain Phillips). In comparison, when Hanks was in his prime, marquee names meant a lot more then they do now, so he could be trapped on an island, or play a slow-minded underdeveloped man who runs across America, and meets famous people, and it would be one of the top grossing films of the year, now not so much. It's also probably a bit of a comfort area for him, he likes playing with stories that he's already familiar with, and working with directors that he likes, such as Spielberg.
My only major complaint is that I do wish Hanks would step out of his comfort zone more, I'd like to see him try and play a disturbed character for example. He did well with his different roles in Cloud Atlas, but they were just that "small roles", not something that filled the entire movie.
Ironically perhaps Hanks's darkest and or different role in recent memory was as the untrustworthy head of a tech company in The Circle, but that film was such a bore (I saw it), and Hanks's role sadly ill-defined and underdeveloped, that I don't necessarily blame anyone if they tell me, they don't remember it.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 27, 2019 2:32:23 GMT
Mickey Rourke
Genre: Crime
Since the 1970's, when both Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino made the Crime genre their own, it often feels like many of those seeking to establish themselves at the very top of the tree of American film actors, have sought some sort of foothold in the genre. As has previously been covered on this thread, Denzel Washington, to many America's Greatest Living Actor, has succeeded DeNiro and Pacino in that genre space, and ruled it with an iron fist for going on twenty years. Joaquin Phoneix, to many the best American actor of his generation is not quite as dominant in the Crime genre, but his track record ( The Yards, Inherent Vice, The Immigrant, We Own The Night, You Were Never Really Here) suggests he has aspirations of impacting that genre like Pacino and DeNiro and Denzel, though his indie approach and lack of wider audience appeal hinders him somewhat. But even his upcoming Joker, which is as mainstream as it gets, plays in the Crime mileau.
What does all this have to do with Mickey Rourke, you say? Well before Denzel became Denzel (he was a part-time movie actor for most of the 80''s, while doing 8 seasons on TV as a nice guy doctor), the guy that really seemed poised to usurp Pacino and DeNiro's mantle in their favored genre, and as the next great American actor, was Rourke. With his intensity, Brando-esque presence and looks to match, Rourke had all the tools needed to dominate. And he certainly gave a good good fist of it for a short period, taking to the Crime genre like it was his rightful inheritance. From a break-out supporting role in Body Heat, to The Pope Of Greenwich Village to The Year Of The Dragon, Rourke in the 80's proved equally adept at playing cop and crook. Rourke even had the audacity to challenge DeNiro onscreen (and by many accounts offscreen) in the horror crime film Angel Heart, with Rourke playing a Private Investigator.
Things were not kind to Rourkes career after the late 1980's, with a succession of poor choices and lacklustre performances killing dead any ambitions to usurp Pacino and DeNiro. But in the mid 2000's, he did make a comeback to the genre, now mostly owned by Denzel in a Denzel movie, as the sleazy lawyer in kidnapping thriller Man On Fire. But his big splash back in the genre really came as Marv in Robert Rodriguez' s adaptation of Frank Miller's pulpy crime graphic novel/comic Sin City. It was a role Rourke was born for, as an imhumanly resiliant thug who always managed to find trouble. And it was a fitting cap to a genre Rourke came close to taking over in the 80's, but never quite managed to stick the landing while his elders still jealously guarded it as their own. Below, is Rourke as an embittered, Un-PC cop in Year Of The Dragon.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 27, 2019 7:39:35 GMT
That's a very interesting look at Hanks's recent career, although I will say I probably disagree a bit about him not transforming into those roles. I do think Hanks goes out of his way to try to at least pick up or imitate some of the mannerisms of those real-life people he's recently been playing, such as Richard Phillips, Ben Bradlee, and Chester Sullenberger. It's just that he's Hanks, so you can recognize him right away, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the most startling thing though about this recent development in his career for me, is when he finally decided to stop dying his hair, and stayed gray permanently after he did Sully. Shook me for days TBH. I would say that Hanks recent stab at biopics might be a combination of age, and the roles he's probably being offered. It seems that he's now at his most successful when he plays real life people ( Sully, Captain Phillips). In comparison, when Hanks was in his prime, marquee names meant a lot more then they do now, so he could be trapped on an island, or play a slow-minded underdeveloped man who runs across America, and meets famous people, and it would be one of the top grossing films of the year, now not so much. It's also probably a bit of a comfort area for him, he likes playing with stories that he's already familiar with, and working with directors that he likes, such as Spielberg. My only major complaint is that I do wish Hanks would step out of his comfort zone more, I'd like to see him try and play a disturbed character for example. He did well with his different roles in Cloud Atlas, but they were just that "small roles", not something that filled the entire movie. Ironically perhaps Hanks's darkest and or different role in recent memory was as the untrustworthy head of a tech company in The Circle, but that film was such a bore (I saw it), and Hanks's role sadly ill-defined and underdeveloped, that I don't necessarily blame anyone if they tell me, they don't remember it. I do agree that Hanks often tries to pick up mannerisms when he imitates someone, but they often feel like superficial gestures as opposed to real immersion in a role (like his wonky Boston accent for Ben Bradlee in The Post. He was always onto a loser with that one as Jason Robards performance as Bradlee still holds sway) . I dunno...maybe I'm being too hard, but it usually feels like Tom Hanks doing a tic. Like I said, it makes little difference if you have no preconceived notions about the person he is playing, but when you do, I think Hanks himself can present a bit of a stumbling block. As for the comfort zone thing....well you just pointed out The Circle, which didn't work in any way and was a gigantic failure. Hanks knows where his bread is buttered and it works for him. He's not suddenly going to shock the world with a Training Day or Once Upon A Time In The West.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 27, 2019 16:13:06 GMT
That's a very interesting look at Hanks's recent career, although I will say I probably disagree a bit about him not transforming into those roles. I do think Hanks goes out of his way to try to at least pick up or imitate some of the mannerisms of those real-life people he's recently been playing, such as Richard Phillips, Ben Bradlee, and Chester Sullenberger. It's just that he's Hanks, so you can recognize him right away, which isn't a necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps the most startling thing though about this recent development in his career for me, is when he finally decided to stop dying his hair, and stayed gray permanently after he did Sully. Shook me for days TBH. I would say that Hanks recent stab at biopics might be a combination of age, and the roles he's probably being offered. It seems that he's now at his most successful when he plays real life people ( Sully, Captain Phillips). In comparison, when Hanks was in his prime, marquee names meant a lot more then they do now, so he could be trapped on an island, or play a slow-minded underdeveloped man who runs across America, and meets famous people, and it would be one of the top grossing films of the year, now not so much. It's also probably a bit of a comfort area for him, he likes playing with stories that he's already familiar with, and working with directors that he likes, such as Spielberg. My only major complaint is that I do wish Hanks would step out of his comfort zone more, I'd like to see him try and play a disturbed character for example. He did well with his different roles in Cloud Atlas, but they were just that "small roles", not something that filled the entire movie. Ironically perhaps Hanks's darkest and or different role in recent memory was as the untrustworthy head of a tech company in The Circle, but that film was such a bore (I saw it), and Hanks's role sadly ill-defined and underdeveloped, that I don't necessarily blame anyone if they tell me, they don't remember it. I do agree that Hanks often tries to pick up mannerisms when he imitates someone, but they often feel like superficial gestures as opposed to real immersion in a role (like his wonky Boston accent for Ben Bradlee in The Post. He was always onto a loser with that one as Jason Robards performance as Bradlee still holds sway) . I dunno...maybe I'm being too hard, but it usually feels like Tom Hanks doing a tic. Like I said, it makes little difference if you have no preconceived notions about the person he is playing, but when you do, I think Hanks himself can present a bit of a stumbling block. As for the comfort zone thing....well you just pointed out The Circle, which didn't work in any way and was a gigantic failure. Hanks knows where his bread is buttered and it works for him. He's not suddenly going to shock the world with a Training Day or Once Upon A Time In The West.Well, not every actor needs to show versatility for every role. I agree that Hanks's impressions can come off as superficial, but I still appreciate him trying, if anything I do agree that Hanks' biggest hill that he needs to get over is Hanks himself. The public persona he's built for himself as Mr. Nice Guy, definitely doesn't make audiences think that he could be a build-up killer, or someone untrustworthy at least. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily look at The Circle, and say that he needs to use that as the excuse to never play a villain. That failure of that movie was less on Hanks, and more from a writing / story standpoint. I think Hanks could play a very convincing more "subtle" villain, if he ever actually tried, or was offered that kind of part. I know for a very long time, he wanted to play a Bond villain, so it's not like he's necessarily against the idea.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 27, 2019 20:24:17 GMT
James Woods
Genre : CrimeLet me take a moment to suggest someone who worked in a genre not as the biggest actor but in a way that suggested he had a unique insight into the genre and how to play it. For crime as I said early on that's to me is easily Pacino and De Niro (with Keitel deceptively large here across all roles too) and then everyone else ...........but James Woods is almost like a Keitel here - you don't realize what he did unless you place the roles side by side and see. As a killer he was unforgettable and creepy in several aspects of the criminal life and mindset - maybe the most searing as a murderer and then convict in The Onion Field. Cast by Sergio Leone in Once Upon A Time In America - the role of his life - he essentially again got to play an amazing arc - young thug, a ruthless peak, ruined by a later psychosis and then to criminally corrupt Senator. The very same year a sports syndicate honcho and oily snake in the noir update Against All Odds. It didn't end there either - a hitman with more on his mind than just that in 1987's fascinating and flawed Best Seller, a comic con man extraordinaire in Diggstown and another big one - low life con man, pimp, drug user Lenny in Martin Scorsese's CasinoThat alone would be an astonishing range of criminal archetypes and filmmakers - Leone, Scorsese but the next year he's an entirely different criminal type - again in mindset particularly. A racist man under a ton of make up Woods got an Oscar nod as one of the most horrifying and vile men ever put on film in Ghosts of Mississippi and he found a way to tie this character into others he brought to life. He later went on to play even more criminals with slight but fascinating tweaks - Haldeman in Nixon for example - another character who rationalizes/intellectualizes his crimes. You'd be hard pressed to find a rogues gallery that competes with that range of characters (he sometimes played police as well sometimes memorably but nothing that compares to the darker side). In The Onion Field - a level of criminal psychosis chillingly and uniquely his own:
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Jul 27, 2019 21:23:11 GMT
I'm beginning to love Woods, and I'm sort of in the middle of a streak - Cop, The Hard Way, True Believer, Against All Odds, and just watched True Crime a smaller role where he's hilarious and Mamet-like, working my way to his bigger darker stuff and eventually the Leone which I haven't seen! So thx Pac for those mentions I'll look into them. I've seen The Onion Field and that's his best I think, electrically sadistic, amusing but very disturbing.
I said recently he has a great ability to be loose and energetic and channel that into an intensity or snap it away into something serious deeper unsettling like with his deadly glares. That's something too - those stares, he can really powerdrive a closeup. Most impressively.... idk who else can feel so dangerous on screen which isn't easy to do.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 27, 2019 21:25:56 GMT
I do agree that Hanks often tries to pick up mannerisms when he imitates someone, but they often feel like superficial gestures as opposed to real immersion in a role (like his wonky Boston accent for Ben Bradlee in The Post. He was always onto a loser with that one as Jason Robards performance as Bradlee still holds sway) . I dunno...maybe I'm being too hard, but it usually feels like Tom Hanks doing a tic. Like I said, it makes little difference if you have no preconceived notions about the person he is playing, but when you do, I think Hanks himself can present a bit of a stumbling block. As for the comfort zone thing....well you just pointed out The Circle, which didn't work in any way and was a gigantic failure. Hanks knows where his bread is buttered and it works for him. He's not suddenly going to shock the world with a Training Day or Once Upon A Time In The West.Well, not every actor needs to show versatility for every role. I agree that Hanks's impressions can come off as superficial, but I still appreciate him trying, if anything I do agree that Hanks' biggest hill that he needs to get over is Hanks himself. The public persona he's built for himself as Mr. Nice Guy, definitely doesn't make audiences think that he could be a build-up killer, or someone untrustworthy at least. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily look at The Circle, and say that he needs to use that as the excuse to never play a villain. That failure of that movie was less on Hanks, and more from a writing / story standpoint. I think Hanks could play a very convincing more "subtle" villain, if he ever actually tried, or was offered that kind of part. I know for a very long time, he wanted to play a Bond villain, so it's not like he's necessarily against the idea. Hmm...who knows, maybe Colonel Tom Parker in Baz Lurhmann's upcoming Elvis biopic might provide Hanks the opportunity to play someone subtly villainous. Parker could easily be portrayed as an unscrupulous and shady character or as a likable and avuncular father figure. With Hanks, the latter is far more likely to be the case, but you never know...
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 27, 2019 21:29:01 GMT
I'm beginning to love Woods, and I'm sort of in the middle of a streak - Cop, The Hard Way, True Believer, Against All Odds, and just watched True Crime a smaller role where he's hilarious and Mamet-like, working my way to his bigger darker stuff and eventually the Leone which I haven't seen! So thx Pac for those mentions I'll look into them. I've seen The Onion Field and that's his best I think, electrically sadistic, amusing but very disturbing. I said recently he has a great ability to be loose and energetic and channel that into an intensity or snap it away into something serious deeper unsettling like with his deadly glares. That's something too - those stares, he can really powerdrive a closeup. Most impressively.... idk who else can feel so dangerous on screen which isn't easy to do. Woods also has good taste in actors. When asked who were the top 3 living actors, two of his choices were Denzel and Meryl.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jul 27, 2019 22:32:57 GMT
Well, not every actor needs to show versatility for every role. I agree that Hanks's impressions can come off as superficial, but I still appreciate him trying, if anything I do agree that Hanks' biggest hill that he needs to get over is Hanks himself. The public persona he's built for himself as Mr. Nice Guy, definitely doesn't make audiences think that he could be a build-up killer, or someone untrustworthy at least. That being said, I wouldn't necessarily look at The Circle, and say that he needs to use that as the excuse to never play a villain. That failure of that movie was less on Hanks, and more from a writing / story standpoint. I think Hanks could play a very convincing more "subtle" villain, if he ever actually tried, or was offered that kind of part. I know for a very long time, he wanted to play a Bond villain, so it's not like he's necessarily against the idea. Hmm...who knows, maybe Colonel Tom Parker in Baz Lurhmann's upcoming Elvis biopic might provide Hanks the opportunity to play someone subtly villainous. Parker could easily be portrayed as an unscrupulous and shady character or as a likable and avuncular father figure. With Hanks, the latter is far more likely to be the case, but you never know... Parker could definitely provide Hanks with a more assholish character, like Walt Disney's greedy tendencies, but without the Disney brand holding it back, especially if they go into the fact that Parker was actually Dutch, and took on a fake public persona and name. I'm also reminded that Hanks turned down Keaton's villainous businessman part in the live-action Dumbo. That movie landed it with a bit of thud, though I kinda enjoyed it, but I think could have been better with Hanks in the role, because quite frankly it might be Keaton's worst performance ever. He would have been far less obvious, and over the top.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 27, 2019 22:38:46 GMT
Here's Woods tweet on his top 3 living actors. Obviously I disagree with his third choice of Clint Eastwood, but he can certainly easily be claimed to be the greatest living movie star and I can see why an actor of Woods vintage, who grew up watching Eastwood might have a deep admiration for Eastwood's economical and hard to replicate style as a film actor. And they are political bedfellows. So an understandable choice for a film actor of Wood's vintage, that I don't agree with, but he's pretty spot on the other two, imho. Woods really stans for Denzel on social media a fair amount. Reminds me of when another great older actor Bruno Ganz was calling Denzel his acting hero. It's pretty reverential, considering Woods himself is an all-time great character actor who has worked with many of the greats, and is also a generation older.
|
|