|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
August 27th, 2009, 20:48
Originally Posted by mageretteThere are some actors (even famous ones), who don't act at all.
@bkreugar: I'm looking forward to seeing this one and I'm not a big Tarentino fan. What was wrong with Brad Pitt's acting?
They simply play themselves and look good. Take John Wayne as an example (except in some of his last movies, where he did some acting).
This was my impression of Brad Pitt's acting.
However, since his role didn't need a good actor, it doesn't reduce the overall quality of the movie.
Nothing to see here.
August 27th, 2009, 22:36
Originally Posted by bkruegerHaha, I wonder if that's true of Johnny Depp.
They simply play themselves and look good.
I mean, just compare all the characters he's played with the exception of 21 Jump Street. Weirdness ensured. Then again, I'm also inclined to believe that it may simply be an affinity towards certain types of roles.
--
"Mystery is important. To know everything, to know the whole truth, is dull. There is no magic in that. Magic is not knowing, magic is wondering about what and how and where." ~ Cortez, from The Longest Journey
"Mystery is important. To know everything, to know the whole truth, is dull. There is no magic in that. Magic is not knowing, magic is wondering about what and how and where." ~ Cortez, from The Longest Journey
August 28th, 2009, 04:50
Thanks, bk. Doesn't seem like it would be a problem for the movie, anyway.
I agree a lot of actors and actresses are pretty stereotypical, and always play, if not themselves, very two-dimensional repetitive roles based on their appearance and other forms of typecasting, but I guess I associate Pitt with more off the wall stuff--ever since I saw him in Twelve Monkeys (and Johnny Depp who I usually don't even recognize outside of his Captain Jack Sparrow outfit) because neither one seems that way at all to me. Tom Cruise,now--I think despite how his roles tend to vary, he's always playing himself. But I don't follow films that much so I may be missing a pattern with Pitt.
I agree a lot of actors and actresses are pretty stereotypical, and always play, if not themselves, very two-dimensional repetitive roles based on their appearance and other forms of typecasting, but I guess I associate Pitt with more off the wall stuff--ever since I saw him in Twelve Monkeys (and Johnny Depp who I usually don't even recognize outside of his Captain Jack Sparrow outfit) because neither one seems that way at all to me. Tom Cruise,now--I think despite how his roles tend to vary, he's always playing himself. But I don't follow films that much so I may be missing a pattern with Pitt.
--
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
August 28th, 2009, 10:15
Originally Posted by mageretteI actually think Tom Cruise has played very diverse roles and often against character, like:
Thanks, bk. Doesn't seem like it would be a problem for the movie, anyway.
I agree a lot of actors and actresses are pretty stereotypical, and always play, if not themselves, very two-dimensional repetitive roles based on their appearance and other forms of typecasting, but I guess I associate Pitt with more off the wall stuff--ever since I saw him in Twelve Monkeys (and Johnny Depp who I usually don't even recognize outside of his Captain Jack Sparrow outfit) because neither one seems that way at all to me. Tom Cruise,now--I think despite how his roles tend to vary, he's always playing himself. But I don't follow films that much so I may be missing a pattern with Pitt.
Born on the 4th of July
Interview with the Vampire
Collateral
Tropic Thunder
Vanilla Sky
---
It's true that many of his roles are action hero hollowood fluff crap - but he's got a lot more range than many "stars".
But that's just me.
Guest
August 28th, 2009, 19:17
@magerette: I don't know enough movies with BP to claim a pattern there. My description was only given to demonstrate the impression I had in that movie. I didn't want to make an overall judgement about BP.
In fact I just checked thathe played in "An interview with a vampire", which I forgot, but where I surely did't have a similar impression of his acting style.
Edit: Coincidently BP and TC both were in "An interview with a vampire". Interesting.
In fact I just checked thathe played in "An interview with a vampire", which I forgot, but where I surely did't have a similar impression of his acting style.
Edit: Coincidently BP and TC both were in "An interview with a vampire". Interesting.
Nothing to see here.
August 28th, 2009, 20:59
Originally Posted by JDR13I don't get that … ?
It was at least a 3/5, just for the fact that his characters name was Skeeter Bronson.![]()
Anyway, there wasn't a single reasonable thing about the premise, the characters were paper thin and not sympathetic in any way, and Adam Sandler is really a terrible actor … I thought I was being generous …
--
-- Mike
-- Mike
SasqWatch
August 28th, 2009, 21:36
Originally Posted by txa1265How do you not get it? Just because it's called 'Bedtime stories' doesn't mean you had to sleep through it.
I don't get that … ?
Anyway, there wasn't a single reasonable thing about the premise, the characters were paper thin and not sympathetic in any way, and Adam Sandler is really a terrible actor … I thought I was being generous …![]()
August 28th, 2009, 21:41
I think you're judging it as an adult movie, Mike. It's a children's movie that can be entertaining for adults. It even starts with "Once upon a time" IIRC. I will admit, though, that it's a fairly typical Sandler vehicle, so if you don't care for his style you'll have a hard time enjoying it.
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
August 28th, 2009, 21:48
I was just joking of course. But seriously, how could you not LOL at the story of Skeeticus the gladiator?!
August 30th, 2009, 05:24
OK, lousy weather and a busy week means Netflix weekend …
Hotel for Dogs - pretty formulaic 'kids do good' story, but with a nice heart. There were some holes and obviously unbelievable things, but the charm of it makes you willing to go along for the ride. 3/5.
Watchman - my kids are big fans of the comic book, so they have been anticipating this for a while. I would call this an all-around disappointment. Too long, paced poorly, drawn out, too little characterization for all of the interminable talking, gratuitous violence changed from the book just to look kewl … 2/5.
So for our last few days, I would rank them in order Hotel for Dogs, Bedtime Stories, and Watchmen.
Hotel for Dogs - pretty formulaic 'kids do good' story, but with a nice heart. There were some holes and obviously unbelievable things, but the charm of it makes you willing to go along for the ride. 3/5.
Watchman - my kids are big fans of the comic book, so they have been anticipating this for a while. I would call this an all-around disappointment. Too long, paced poorly, drawn out, too little characterization for all of the interminable talking, gratuitous violence changed from the book just to look kewl … 2/5.
So for our last few days, I would rank them in order Hotel for Dogs, Bedtime Stories, and Watchmen.
--
-- Mike
-- Mike
SasqWatch
August 30th, 2009, 06:42
^ Really? I loved Watchmen. Great movie. Rorschach was amazing.
I saw The Taking of Pelham 123. Pretty decent movie. Nothing spectacular. I was expecting worse.
I saw The Taking of Pelham 123. Pretty decent movie. Nothing spectacular. I was expecting worse.
August 30th, 2009, 08:05
Originally Posted by GorathI didn't see the original, but I did hear people say that it's much better. So I went to this one with lower expectations. But Denzel Washington and Travolta were actually pretty good. Travolta really managed to look menacing.
Hard to compete with the brilliant original with Matthau and Shaw, and the good remake with Olmos.
August 30th, 2009, 10:47
Originally Posted by txa1265…and a very annoying blue penis that just wouldn't go away….
Watchman - I would call this an all-around disappointment. Too long, paced poorly, drawn out, too little characterization for all of the interminable talking, gratuitous violence changed from the book just to look kewl … 2/5
August 30th, 2009, 15:44
Halloween 2
Let me preface this with a disclaimer. Mrs dte and I generally sit in the back row of the theatre so there won't be any talkers behind us. Works out pretty good. Unless the people to your left spend the entire movie texting (nice high contrast screen, bitch), the people to your right spend the entire movie loudly talking non-stop, the person directly to your right from the talker crew spends much of the movie sitting on the floor because evidently she's less scared there, and a couple guys in front of you show their texting prowess by holding the phones over their head while typing with the thumb of the hand that's holding the phone. Might be the second worst movie audience ever. We went to a different theatre than usual--the place itself was quite the palace, but we won't ever go back there again. Anyhoo…
The movie itself was barely adequate. Lots of shock-value gore. I don't remember enough of the original to do a comparison, but I think it's safe to say Rob Zombie took liberties with the storyline. Zombie has done some really good movies recently, but this really ain't one of them. Remember "House of 1000 Corpses"? Basically a Powerpoint job application for the effects guys parading as a movie. Halloween 2 had a lot more in common with that show than it did with Zombie's excellent (yet still very gory) Halloween 1 remake.
Let me preface this with a disclaimer. Mrs dte and I generally sit in the back row of the theatre so there won't be any talkers behind us. Works out pretty good. Unless the people to your left spend the entire movie texting (nice high contrast screen, bitch), the people to your right spend the entire movie loudly talking non-stop, the person directly to your right from the talker crew spends much of the movie sitting on the floor because evidently she's less scared there, and a couple guys in front of you show their texting prowess by holding the phones over their head while typing with the thumb of the hand that's holding the phone. Might be the second worst movie audience ever. We went to a different theatre than usual--the place itself was quite the palace, but we won't ever go back there again. Anyhoo…
The movie itself was barely adequate. Lots of shock-value gore. I don't remember enough of the original to do a comparison, but I think it's safe to say Rob Zombie took liberties with the storyline. Zombie has done some really good movies recently, but this really ain't one of them. Remember "House of 1000 Corpses"? Basically a Powerpoint job application for the effects guys parading as a movie. Halloween 2 had a lot more in common with that show than it did with Zombie's excellent (yet still very gory) Halloween 1 remake.
--
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Can we be done with the offseason? / / Detroit Red Wings: At least we get a new coach
August 30th, 2009, 21:25
@dte: Sounds like the theater experience was more scary than the movie.
Originally Posted by danutz_plusplusWe rented the original instead of the remake by mistake this weekend(because some spacey chick didn't look at the production date or the cast when netflixing) and it was much better than I expected; tight-paced, well-scripted and really enjoyable, with Matthau at his best in a semi-serious role. But still looking forward to seeing the new one.
I didn't see the original, but I did hear people say that it's much better. So I went to this one with lower expectations. But Denzel Washington and Travolta were actually pretty good. Travolta really managed to look menacing.
--
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
August 30th, 2009, 21:35
Originally Posted by DArtagnanI freely admit I can't stand him so I'm prejudiced, but also it seems every time I've seen him he's playing some cocky pretty-boy hero with an attitude. I never caught Interview with a Vampire simply because he was in it and I assumed that would be his approach to LeStat, who to my mind is a much too complex character for the likes of Cruise. You need brooding for LeStat--serious brooding and no spunkiness.
I actually think Tom Cruise has played very diverse roles and often against character *snip*
It's true that many of his roles are action hero hollowood fluff crap - but he's got a lot more range than many "stars".
But that's just me.

Could be that it's just me, D'Artagnan.
--
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
August 30th, 2009, 22:19
I don't like Mr. Cruise , either (mainly because he looks alot like my little bro - whom I like, but still), but I really liked him in Interview with the Vampire, in Magnolia… and especially in Vanilla Sky (a movie that left me speechless. But I have yet to see the original).
@JDR: Penis? Perhaps I should watch the flick after all
.
@JDR: Penis? Perhaps I should watch the flick after all
.
--
ESO-playing machine
Semper HiFi!
Motto of the 54th Groove Bde.
ESO-playing machine
Semper HiFi!
Motto of the 54th Groove Bde.
Reply
Page 55 of 332
« First
<
5
45
53
54
55
56
57
65
105
155
>
Last »
Next Thread »
« Previous Thread
|
|
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:46.
