Actors that annoy you

[MrChewiebitums]

i hate cruise because of what he does in real life
i dont think there is anyone who i particularly hate for their movies
perhaps shane cook?
everyone says hes sooo funny "many shane cook is in that omg"
i dont even know who shane cook (or is it dane?) is and i have appreantly been told i have seen a few films with him in them, and didnt find anything funny

 

[Line]

i hate cruise because of what he does in real life

I'm not a fan of his antics either but I allow this to affect my judgement of him as an actor.

i dont think there is anyone who i particularly hate for their movies
perhaps shane cook?
everyone says hes sooo funny "many shane cook is in that omg"
i dont even know who shane cook (or is it dane?) is and i have appreantly been told i have seen a few films with him in them, and didnt find anything funny

Shane Cook?

 

[Tech]

 

[Oloz]

Kevin Levrone

 

[tim290280]

You can hand in that man card.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a film whore and have seen just about all of Steven Segals movies. Doesn't mean I admire them at all....... Except the one where he was the Budist, wondering monk, native american, handyman, priest, ex-special forces, environmentalist that took on the polluting oil company.

I half agree with the above in its regard to Cruise. Becoming a star of his caliber really has little to do with ability but competence. Will Smith is hardly what I'd consider a strong actor despite giving a few passable performances but I never look forward to either him or his films. Cruise is the opposite. While his expressionism has become familiar territory by now due to his longevity, his delivery and how me channels the weight of a scene is exemplary. He doesn't always give great performances but this is largely due to the directors he's working with. I think it's in ignoring this distinction that one would begin seeing faults in his performances. His three best roles, for my money came in Collateral, Eyes Wide Shut, and Magnolia where he worked with Michael Mann, Stanley Kubrick, and PT Anderson, respectively. Here he's given the chance to let the character consume him and his performances are all astounding and, more importantly, they're all completely different. Another finalist would be his portrayal of Ron Kovic in Born on the Fourth of July, which does call for shouting but in a different way. There it was more of pain and loss. The desperation of Kovic was incredibly managed by Cruise.

Actually I had forgotten 4th of July. As for his roles in the other three, on contemplation his roles weren't bad in my eyes, just the movies were not enjoyable for me. This therefore cast a bad light on his role as a result for me.

I have to justify Eyes Wide Shut. I'm a Kubrick fan. I first saw A Clockwork Orange and The Shining as a movie double; this was my first exposure to his work. With all of his films I both love and hate them, which is why I think I enjoy them so much. He builds in so many great performances and creates a real emotional attachment to every scene. But at the same time you wonder why some scenes are even in the film, you wonder why he gets away with some lazy story telling (the way he implys a story but never actually delivers anything concrete, which is "arty" and "invoking interpretation", blah blah blah). Now Eyes Wide Shut suffered from a lack of involvement in the story and characters. You did not really emphathise or become involved in the story. The emotional connect that was needed for this film was lacking. I don't think that was solely Cruise, but rather the character he played and the flacid performance by Kidman.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

What I mean by the European sparce style is that there is a lot of cinema in Europe that relys on the long drawn out scenes that are done deliberately in order to communicate more of the subtle movements, actions, emotions, etc. I've noticed it in other cinema as well, especially in those that are trying to be melodramatic or dramatic. Mann tends to employ this technique to impy a drama or emotional depth that he fails to create satisfactorially.

 

[MrChewiebitums]

Kevin Levrone

>: (

 

[lifterdead]

A piece of cardboard could've done a better job as Anakin Skywalker.....

 

[thedon]

clive owen gets on my nerves! over actor

 

[Tonka]

leonardo decaprio, name says it all.

 

[Maxmonzter]

nicholas cage
jody foster

and for the lulz shaq in kazaam

 

[Line]

Actually I had forgotten 4th of July. As for his roles in the other three, on contemplation his roles weren't bad in my eyes, just the movies were not enjoyable for me. This therefore cast a bad light on his role as a result for me.

Fair enough.

I have to justify Eyes Wide Shut. I'm a Kubrick fan. I first saw A Clockwork Orange and The Shining as a movie double; this was my first exposure to his work. With all of his films I both love and hate them, which is why I think I enjoy them so much. He builds in so many great performances and creates a real emotional attachment to every scene. But at the same time you wonder why some scenes are even in the film, you wonder why he gets away with some lazy story telling (the way he implys a story but never actually delivers anything concrete, which is "arty" and "invoking interpretation", blah blah blah).

I find the emotional element of Kubrick's films are often byproducts of his aesthetic, more so than the thematic content. Of course, exceptions exist and there are some strong emotional strokes in a film like Barry Lyndon or Lolita or even Paths of Glory to an extent. Still, the more visceral resonance he evokes is largely due to the way he shapes his universe through his lens. Because this is his largest strength, I'm not sure I understand your criticism of "lazy storytelling" or even recognize it as being valid. Perhaps I'd have a better understanding of what you mean if you pointed out something particular but I'm not buying the tongue-in-cheek critique of an artist being "arty". Evocation and interpretational challenges are part of art as they broaden what a picture can convey beyond words and imagery into the conscious of the viewer. Instead of merely stating problems regarding society, class, culture, et cetera, they combine them (as visceral representations) with cognitive-inducing narration, allowing the medium to transcend a physical realm. This is more or less the nature of film, at least in the hands of true cinematic artists. The ultimate challenge becomes to portray ideologies in a weightedly visual medium and still allowing existential concerns or relevant considerations to arise.

Now Eyes Wide Shut suffered from a lack of involvement in the story and characters. You did not really emphathise or become involved in the story. The emotional connect that was needed for this film was lacking. I don't think that was solely Cruise, but rather the character he played and the flacid performance by Kidman.

I don't like the idea that films need to establish an emotional connection to succeed because it undermines the goals of ambitious directors like Kubrick and supersedes intent by projecting film as decidedly "entertaining," again in a visceral sense. Films can connect with an audience in a multitude of ways, oftentimes in a layered or overlapping sense. One might not appreciate any purported emotional connection until introspectively examining the ideas of social malaise present in the film and how it does/doesn't parallel their own life. It's only after we understand and dutifully explore the intellectual aspects of the film that we can fully relate on a more emote level; heightening the eventual experience.

What I mean by the European sparce style is that there is a lot of cinema in Europe that relys on the long drawn out scenes that are done deliberately in order to communicate more of the subtle movements, actions, emotions, etc. I've noticed it in other cinema as well, especially in those that are trying to be melodramatic or dramatic. Mann tends to employ this technique to impy a drama or emotional depth that he fails to create satisfactorially.

Examples in Mann's work? I understand what you're saying but I wouldn't label it as decidedly European, as the filmmakers of that content developed a plethora of cinematic movements. all varying in aesthetic style and communicative motifs. If anything, said labeling is actually more indicative of other geographical regions and their unwillingness to fully explore the boundaries of filmic exploration. Anyway, I digress. I find Mann's films are shot appropriately, even excellently at times. He understands space and how objects and people move within it better than most director's today, particularly his American counterparts. He's subtle, yes, but as it's said, "God is in the details." I'd much prefer something as visually poetic as Tarkovsky's portrayal of time passing towards the end of Stalker, all shown in a single shot, than title cards or dialogue expressing the same thing.

 

[Zigurd]

No, I just know how to write well..

Gay people write well, are you gay Line ?

Keanu Reaves - Only emotion: (-_-)
Christian Bale - Only emotion: >=(
Nicholas Cage - Only emotion: :/

Ben Stiller - Only acting personality: The loser we laugh at.
Rob Schneider - Only acting personality: The fucking idiot.

Basically, any actor that shows little "acting skills". If you don't show a wide spectrum of emotions/roles/personalities as an actor, chances are I fucking hate you.

With the exception of Sean Connery, who despite playing Sean Connery in every fucking movie he does... is STILL motherfucking Sean Connery.

 

[tim290280]

Fair enough.

I find the emotional element of Kubrick's films are often byproducts of his aesthetic, more so than the thematic content. Of course, exceptions exist and there are some strong emotional strokes in a film like Barry Lyndon or Lolita or even Paths of Glory to an extent. Still, the more visceral resonance he evokes is largely due to the way he shapes his universe through his lens. Because this is his largest strength, I'm not sure I understand your criticism of "lazy storytelling" or even recognize it as being valid. Perhaps I'd have a better understanding of what you mean if you pointed out something particular but I'm not buying the tongue-in-cheek critique of an artist being "arty". Evocation and interpretational challenges are part of art as they broaden what a picture can convey beyond words and imagery into the conscious of the viewer. Instead of merely stating problems regarding society, class, culture, et cetera, they combine them (as visceral representations) with cognitive-inducing narration, allowing the medium to transcend a physical realm. This is more or less the nature of film, at least in the hands of true cinematic artists. The ultimate challenge becomes to portray ideologies in a weightedly visual medium and still allowing existential concerns or relevant considerations to arise.

I don't like the idea that films need to establish an emotional connection to succeed because it undermines the goals of ambitious directors like Kubrick and supersedes intent by projecting film as decidedly "entertaining," again in a visceral sense. Films can connect with an audience in a multitude of ways, oftentimes in a layered or overlapping sense. One might not appreciate any purported emotional connection until introspectively examining the ideas of social malaise present in the film and how it does/doesn't parallel their own life. It's only after we understand and dutifully explore the intellectual aspects of the film that we can fully relate on a more emote level; heightening the eventual experience.

Examples in Mann's work? I understand what you're saying but I wouldn't label it as decidedly European, as the filmmakers of that content developed a plethora of cinematic movements. all varying in aesthetic style and communicative motifs. If anything, said labeling is actually more indicative of other geographical regions and their unwillingness to fully explore the boundaries of filmic exploration. Anyway, I digress. I find Mann's films are shot appropriately, even excellently at times. He understands space and how objects and people move within it better than most director's today, particularly his American counterparts. He's subtle, yes, but as it's said, "God is in the details." I'd much prefer something as visually poetic as Tarkovsky's portrayal of time passing towards the end of Stalker, all shown in a single shot, than title cards or dialogue expressing the same thing.

I had a really detailed reply typed out and then had Explorer crash on me :31_whip: It's a pity because I enjoy having a real film conversation. Sorry Joe.

Rather than type it again I'll just say that:
Kubrick films - narrative is often lost e.g. Full Metal Jacket ("two halves" no middle) which is beneath Kubrick's abilities and shows laziness.

Calling Kubrick "arty" was lazy and facitious on my part. But I often feel that the best films leave you thinking and contemplative, which Kubric does. At the same time, however, he often leaves too much open to interpretation such that central themes (Space Odessey) and sometimes plot (Odessey again) are often not developed clearly. In other circumstances (Dr StangeLove) the complimentary scenes don't add to one another but stand alone. This last point is a positive and negative: positive as it means that the film is greater as a whole due to strong individual parts; negative because scenes don't necessarily transition well. Although this is very subjective (and in the case of Strangelove, based around the war-room scenes, especially Sellers Dr Stangelove scene).

European - my term that I assigned and is completely arbitary. I started using it after seeing a French film about an obsessive fetishist. Another European film (starring John Malcovich) used the same style.

My use of this term was to essentially voice my frustration at Mann for creating films that hinge on performances that should fill the screen. But instead the audience is somewhat distanced from them.

Actually probably easier if we both just watch all the Kubrick films again.

 

[skindnef]

visually poetic as Tarkovsky's portrayal of time passing towards the end of Stalker, all shown in a single shot, than title cards or dialogue expressing the same thing.

Beautifully stated.
By the way, Dude, I think Zigurd is hitting on you. jk

 

[Skeptic]

Viggo Mortensen. Not all the time though... just in GI Jane with his pretentious little moustache and short shorts.

 

[jnutz19]

Jack Black

 

[thedon]

Gay people write well, are you gay Line ?

Keanu Reaves - Only emotion: (-_-)
Christian Bale - Only emotion: >=(
Nicholas Cage - Only emotion: :/

Ben Stiller - Only acting personality: The loser we laugh at.
Rob Schneider - Only acting personality: The fucking idiot.

Basically, any actor that shows little "acting skills". If you don't show a wide spectrum of emotions/roles/personalities as an actor, chances are I fucking hate you.

With the exception of Sean Connery, who despite playing Sean Connery in every fucking movie he does... is STILL motherfucking Sean Connery.

same with clint eastwood..clint eastwood plays clint eastwood in every fucking movie he does...hes STILL motherfucking clint eastwood

 

[Braaq]

I actually do not get annoyed by any actor, I think some are not great actors. But they each bring what they have to the table and most of the time pull it off.
I have favorite actors, and actors I do not like outside of the movies. But I do not steer clear of any actors or actresses. I don't like to limit movies I watch on that basis.

 

[Line]

I had a really detailed reply typed out and then had Explorer crash on me :31_whip: It's a pity because I enjoy having a real film conversation. Sorry Joe.

It's quite alright. Had you responded in length, I probably would have put off replying for another week.

Rather than type it again I'll just say that:
Kubrick films - narrative is often lost e.g. Full Metal Jacket ("two halves" no middle) which is beneath Kubrick's abilities and shows laziness.

Full Metal Jacket is my second least favorite of Kubrick's films; maybe third but there's no need to split hairs. That being said, I think the idea of the film and his narrative is competent but he didn't foresee the iconography of Lee Ermey's performance. Nonetheless, it's not that strong a film, though I'd hardly chalk any of it laziness.

Calling Kubrick "arty" was lazy and facitious on my part. But I often feel that the best films leave you thinking and contemplative, which Kubric does. At the same time, however, he often leaves too much open to interpretation such that central themes (Space Odessey) and sometimes plot (Odessey again) are often not developed clearly.

Seeing how I consider 2001: A Space Odyssey the greatest film ever made, I'm inclined to disagree. I have seen films where a director's ambition overshadows, or rather, hinders the execution of the picture but it doesn't apply here. There is a lot up for debate/discussion in the case of 2001 but there is plenty of evidence to support certain interpretations - Kubrick's amazing use of mise-en-scène and his visual narrative command support this.

In other circumstances (Dr StangeLove) the complimentary scenes don't add to one another but stand alone. This last point is a positive and negative: positive as it means that the film is greater as a whole due to strong individual parts; negative because scenes don't necessarily transition well. Although this is very subjective (and in the case of Strangelove, based around the war-room scenes, especially Sellers Dr Stangelove scene).

I don't disagree here and find that Kubrick was still finding his aesthetic in Strangelove. Still, it's a difficult narrative to surmise and its other considerations (it arguably being the best comedic satire of all time) make some missteps, not forgivable, but easy to overlook.

European - my term that I assigned and is completely arbitary. I started using it after seeing a French film about an obsessive fetishist. Another European film (starring John Malcovich) used the same style.

Fair enough. Know the name of the movie? Sounds interesting.

My use of this term was to essentially voice my frustration at Mann for creating films that hinge on performances that should fill the screen. But instead the audience is somewhat distanced from them.

I don't really find this to be a problem because his films don't require, or aim for, emotional resonance in order to succeed. We may associate with the characters and there are some admittedly emotionally charged scenes, sure, but this is hardly his focus [in most of his work].

Actually probably easier if we both just watch all the Kubrick films again.

Nothing bad could come of that.

 

[tim290280]

^^ I can't find the title of the film. I'll keep trying.

Basic premise is an old man (a painter I think) gets a nubile young woman into his house. He gets her to bathe in milk that he uses to make food, gets her to urinate into a large basket of eggs into which he inserts his head, etc..... Because of his fetish and it involving young girls who think he is weird but sweet he is generally shunned by the rest of society. So it becomes about him finding a semblance of acceptance from the willing accomplice.

Someone may be able to help (it has been awhile since I saw it last).