For me it's usually the comedian actor that end up playing the same character film after film - Adam Sandler, Jim Carrey, Will Ferrell are obvious ones. I don't care for their comedies, but suddenly they do a more serious role and I'm flabbergasted and impressed (Rein over me, Truman show, Stranger than Fiction)
Katie Holmes in Batman Begins-- I'm supposed to believe that she's already a District Attorney at the young age of 27 in a big city the size of Gotham City?
Cillian Murphy as the head of Arkham Assylum at the age of 29?
I don't mind Katie Holmes at the love interest, but she's not old enough to have the job she has and neither did Cillian Murphy and they should have cast somebody older as the Scarecrow. Otherwise I really enjoyed the movie.
Hannibal, Face, B.A. and Crazy Murdoch from the recent film.
not one of them got anywhere close to living up to the original characters.
what they should have done is have...
Hannibal: tatum chaning (**** actor but would be good as an older leader than the rest)
Face: zac efron (or some other pretty boy)
B.A.Baracus: ? (hardest choice of all)
Crazy Murdoch: shia le bouf (acting how he did in that kids show he had years ago)
i think they should have gone way back to when they were much younger, have hannibal always complaining about having to do all the work, have face being crap at talking to girls, B.A. constantly fighting bullies in the streets, and murdoch is the glue with the comedy.
that would have been more interesting than a feature length version of a really bad episode of the A-TEAM.
Comedians who take non-comedy roles but then decide to be their hip cool selves to show how hip and cool they are.
Women who refuse to get dirty. And some guys. They just climbed out of a swamp and have blow dried hair and full make-up. They're just too beautiful to be seen as less than perfect.
I was impressed by Kate Beckinsale in Underworld. She had greasy hair and no apparent make-up.
Sorry man, but Shai LaDouche is a S&%#!?*%!$Y actor. He can't play anything other than the awkward dork who surfs porn and lusts after a chick that he could never get in the real world.I wish he would just drop off the face of the planet and stop making films.
I'm not going to list examples, but even worse is when they cast a 'famous' actor in a role outside his already established character 'typecast' that he normally plays, it's usually way to distracting for me to even want to relate to the new character, even if they do a good or even great job acting the part and attempting the sell the character...
Although sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised but not usually...
Saw Rise of The Planet of the Apes recently and it was pretty good. James Franco's performance was... ehh. I felt like I've seen him too much recently. Green Hornet, 127 Hours, Spider-Man and it's two sequels etc. Something about his performance. I just can't put my finger on it.
I only have two of those issues 1 Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan (not saying that hes not good but i think he would have made a better Kyle Rayner or maybe a Guy Gardner green lantern.) and the other one was Captain America I like the movie dont get me wrong its a fun movie but the scene where the 2 hydra guys with the flamethrowers... I mean come on he is standing in front of you for ******'s sake just try to burn his @ss...
Pretty much any A list actor, unfortunately. Once they reach a certain level of fame, it's hard not to see the actor, rather than the character. My favorite actors tend to be the ones that people refer to as "They guy/woman who played..." simply because you see the character. I saw a blurb from an article the other day, I want to say it was Kevin Spacey being interviewed, but he said the main reason he lived such a private and secluded life was that he didn't want people to see "him" when they watched one of his films, he wanted them to see the character.
...even worse is when they cast a 'famous' actor in a role outside his already established character 'typecast' that he normally plays, it's usually way to distracting for me to even want to relate to the new character, even if they do a good or even great job acting the part and attempting the sell the character...
This reminds me of Nicholas Meyer describing the difference between an "actor" and a "movie star".
An "actor" pretends to be someone else. So they (the actor) become so buried in the role that all you see is the character and you completely forget the actor themselves.
A "movie star" on the other hand, believes that someone else is pretending to be them. In other words they play themselves all the time. When they are approached for a role, they believe it is because the role has been written for them, and all they have to do is their usual schtick.
Stars are almost always stars. Hepburn was always Hepburn, Bogart always Bogart.
Dustin Hoffman can really disappear sometimes. [tootsie and rain man] John Wayne and Clint Eastwood did parodies of themselves and got Oscars. [true grit and unforgiven]
Pretty much anything January Jones stars in. I had watched Mad Men and grew from feeling sorry for her character to being irritated that she was such a... you know. I initially thought her being cast as Emma Frost was going to be a great choice.
Then I watched X-Men: First Class and realized that she doesn't even act she just plays herself, which isn't very entertaining. Funny thing is the little boy that plays her son on Madmen even talked about how she was "mean" and didn't like working with her on set. Haha
Elisabeth Shue as Jennifer Parker in Back to the Future II. I remember watching that when it first came out and was confused why they changed actresses. To me, I wished they'd have kept Claudia Wells, so I was never attached to the "new" Jennifer after that and into the third movie.
For me it was Hayden Christensen in the prequels. It just seems to me he only can do two expressions: pouty and more pouty. If they had a better actor to play Anakin who knows, maybe the love story and Palpatine's manipulation really would have been believable.
Well, maybe not. But at least it would have been more enjoyable to watch.
For some reason ive never bought Leonardo Decaprio in any adult role. Its like his acting is just slightly forced to the extent where it can't be considered bad, but still makes it obvious he is acting.
Pretty much any A list actor, unfortunately. Once they reach a certain level of fame, it's hard not to see the actor, rather than the character. My favorite actors tend to be the ones that people refer to as "They guy/woman who played..." simply because you see the character. I saw a blurb from an article the other day, I want to say it was Kevin Spacey being interviewed, but he said the main reason he lived such a private and secluded life was that he didn't want people to see "him" when they watched one of his films, he wanted them to see the character.
Sadly, I think many talented actors go in this direction over time. I think it has more to do with their career in the sense of "Hey, I need to make a living" than it does with their acting chops.
This reminds me of Nicholas Meyer describing the difference between an "actor" and a "movie star".
An "actor" pretends to be someone else. So they (the actor) become so buried in the role that all you see is the character and you completely forget the actor themselves.
A "movie star" on the other hand, believes that someone else is pretending to be them. In other words they play themselves all the time. When they are approached for a role, they believe it is because the role has been written for them, and all they have to do is their usual schtick.
As I said, I think it's more about making a living than working a craft. Pacino was -- and still is -- an immensely talented actor....when he bothers too act instead of HOOAH!! He's gotten some excellent reviews for the Shakespeare he does in NYC. Admittedly, his film career has gone all bug-eyed and shouty since the 90s, but the guy CAN act. He just..doesn't. Not on film, anyway.
Same story with DeNiro and any number of other highly talented actors. Bruce Willis is another fantastic example. The guy has incredible range, I think. He's not JUST John McClane: Tough Guy. He can do comedy quite well, too. And, at least as I recall, he did a fine job in 12 Monkeys. BUT he definitely plays roles where he's just "playing Bruce Willis." Kevin Smith talked about directing him and how, for the film they were doing (a buddy cop film), he was basically like "I'm going to act this my way. Just point the camera at me, pal." And he was right, as Smith admits, but it goes to what you're talking about re: "Look, you hired me because you wanted BRUCE WILLIS, not because you wanted your character brought to life. So let me do my thing because I'm Bruce Willis and I KNOW how to play BRUCE WILLIS."
They did not sell to me that Loki was evil in Thor. The guy was right, Thor was a ******* and loki tried to learn him a lesson.
Odin did steal little baby loki from the ice giants, so he had it all coming for him. They lied and tricked him. I did not belive the "but i love you as my real son" crap oden told him. DUDE! You stole a baby during battle, and blackmailed the parents to stop the war. It don't make it right just because you started to have feeling for he kid later.
Oh and Thor was still a ******* at the end of the movie.
I actually found Loki to be a delightfully complex character for a comic book film. And Thor was a *******, sure, but that was rather the point: he's a ******* who learns a wee bit of humility (but just a wee bit).
One of the most recent examples that come to mind, as StevenRogers brought up: Natalie Portman in Thor...I don't know if it was her delivery of the lines or the script itself, but i did not buy into her character at all.
Yeah, Portman was pretty to look at, but as a scientist? Eh, I wasn't buying it. But they weren't selling it too hard, anyway. She really WAS just there to be pretty.
Katie Holmes in Batman Begins-- I'm supposed to believe that she's already a District Attorney at the young age of 27 in a big city the size of Gotham City?
Cillian Murphy as the head of Arkham Assylum at the age of 29?
I don't mind Katie Holmes at the love interest, but she's not old enough to have the job she has and neither did Cillian Murphy and they should have cast somebody older as the Scarecrow. Otherwise I really enjoyed the movie.
1.) Katie Holmes was an ASSISTANT District Attorney. They make a point to show that she takes orders from a guy who's higher up in the food chain. And it's conceivable that if she's a serious hotshot, she'd be running murder trials and OC cases, but she'd have to be a SERIOUS hotshot for that. And she, I think, doesn't sell that performance. So, I agree with you that she didn't have what it took to make me believe her as the character, but it wasn't quite as big a stretch as you may recall. I have a good friend who is 33 and works at the Manhattan DA's office as an ADA, and he's not running murder trials, but is running some major crimes cases, and has only been in practice about 4-5 years now, I think.
2.) I don't recall (but I'd have to go back and watch) that Cillian Murphy was the HEAD of Arkham Asylum. Merely that he was a well regarded psychiatrist who had been given reign to use his radical therapy techniques. That said, yeah, an MD (psychiatrists are MDs) with THAT kind of profile at 29? That's a stretch. He'd probably be doing a fellowship year, or MAYBE would've been in full-time post-fellowship practice for a whopping 2-ish years. Murphy as The Scarecrow, though, that I bought.
For me it was Hayden Christensen in the prequels. It just seems to me he only can do two expressions: pouty and more pouty. If they had a better actor to play Anakin who knows, maybe the love story and Palpatine's manipulation really would have been believable.
I know it's easy to bag on Hayden in the prequels, but honestly, I think he as an ACTOR gets a bad rap. Check him out in Shattered Glass. He takes the weaknesses of the Anakin role (the whiny aspect) and turns them into real strengths, and he plays a smarmy little snot EXTREMELY well. Seriously, I was impressed by it, especially having only seen him in the prequels otherwise.
A lot of times, an actor -- especially a starting actor in a high profile role -- is stuck with the words on the page and the direction they're given. Anakin was a wooden CHARACTER, and Lucas as a director is not known for giving his actors a ton of guidance. I seem to recall other actors saying that his approach was basically to say things like "Faster. More excited." No deeper context, no insight into the characters to help the actors get inside their heads, etc. "Sadder. Louder."
For some reason ive never bought Leonardo Decaprio in any adult role. Its like his acting is just slightly forced to the extent where it can't be considered bad, but still makes it obvious he is acting.
I've had the same problems with him and it only finally went away when I saw Inception. That was the first time I didn't see Leo DiCaprio, and just saw the character. Although I heard he's excellent in Blood Diamond.
. Bruce Willis is another fantastic example. The guy has incredible range, I think. He's not JUST John McClane: Tough Guy. He can do comedy quite well, too. And, at least as I recall, he did a fine job in 12 Monkeys. BUT he definitely plays roles where he's just "playing Bruce Willis." Kevin Smith talked about directing him and how, for the film they were doing (a buddy cop film), he was basically like "I'm going to act this my way. Just point the camera at me, pal."
That's interesting. I read (or saw) an interview with Terry Gilliam where he said that he told Willis that he wasn't allowed to do any "Bruce Willis" stuff. "No squinty eye thing, Bruce", and such. And that film, I find, is the example many people use to show Willis can act.
Oh, and the Kevin Smith buddy cop film, "Stakeout"...better title: "Sellout". :lol
(disclosure: I didn't actually see the film... )
I have one that just ruins any Military movie for me. Stops it dead.
When I see actors, dressed as soldiers, marines, etc, that do not follow the standard dress code. IE haircuts, uniform standards and the two biggest peeves of all?
Shoelaces and hats (or "covers")!
I swear to god! These kills me. My army brothers here can back me up. We are taught to tuck in those laces, to the point where someone will stamp on your foot because they see a "snake"! Its a safety issue. You do not want to get a lace caught on something and trip. Like something in a humvee when trying to dismount in a hurry, etc
Also, The Army policy on covers is that it is worn where the bottom part of the hat would be parallel to the marching surface.
Example:
Guy on right = right = "High Speed"
Guy on left = wrong = "Dirt farmer"
So, when I see these things the whole premise is blown. How hard would it be to hire someone, or even if the costume/wardrobe dept had a copy or AR670-1? These standards are not hard to follow and it's the small details ("attention to detail, right?") that make the character believable.
