Unpopular Entertainment Opinions • Page 24

I guess when I think about my favorite movies and performers I don't separate Under the Skin and Superbad and Angels With Dirty Faces. They just come to mind because I love them. I don't separate Cary Grant from Michael B. Jordan from Denzel Washington. They're all great.

 

Isn't that the "they're just playing themselves" criticism? That line of thinking requires an actor be transformative and disappear, and I think that's a misguided way to judge/view a performance. Lincoln required Daniel Day Lewis do what he did, the Wolf of Wall Street required Leonardo DiCaprio to do what he did, Manchester by the Sea required Casey Affleck to do what he did, and so on. Just because the physicality of a performer is similar to what we feel we know about them, I don't think that makes a lesser performance. Maybe we just have different philosophies, but, and I've made this case before, Solaris George Clooney is a world apart from Ocean's 11 George Clooney which is a world apart from Michael Clayton George Clooney, etc. Marlon Brando is his most identifiably the person Marlon Brando in Streetcar and Waterfront, and they're two of the greatest film performances of all time. Jared Leto is near unrecognizable physically from what I know of Jared Leto in stuff like Dallas Buyers Club and Suicide Squad, but it doesn't make those performances better because he's still lacking as an actor.

 

I don't think Cruise plays himself at all. I can see how that could be interpreted in that way though, that wasn't entirely what I meant. He doesn't have to be transformative or do any deep method acting or anything. I just don't think there's an incredible amount of diversity in his performances and even then I don't think they're anything spectacular.* Like I said earlier, he's rarely the best actor in any given film he's in. He's consistently good in everything and because of that he's great but I can't consider him one of the greats.

Just so it doesn't get misunderstood again, I'm not criticizing him for a lack of grandeur or anything. Most of my favorite actors and performances are not grand, larger than life performances but rather the exact opposite.

Edit: Magnolia and Jerry Maguire aside*

 

You can still find nuance while never disappearing into character. Tom Hanks is one of the best example of this. Grant is another. So is Jimmy Stewart. And Cagney. All all-time greats.

 

Tom Hanks is our generation's Jimmy Stewart

 

I would argue that Grant was actually capable of really stunning dramatic work, having seen None But the Lonely Heart. But when it flopped it seems like he took it as a referendum on himself as a "serious actor"

 

Agree wholeheartedly. Right down to just having 5 nominations from the Academy and then being taken for granted

 

Can't believe I never saw this thread before! Instant follow

 

I'd put Hanks way above Cruise though. Grant as well. Stewart maybe, I haven't seen enough of him to be honest.

 

Tommy Wiseau > Tommy Hanks

Fun Fact: Tom Hanks grew up spending a lot of time in my little town and would sometimes go to the theatre that I now manage. That's gonna be my go to conversation starter if I ever meet him :p

 

Any shade thrown at Jimmy and we will have words, sir.

I legit have a rule that he always has to have my most movies seen by an actor. Whenever DeNiro or Sam Jackson get close I put a moratorium on their movies until I see a few more from Jimmy.

 

The obsession with actors is such a weird way to watch movies. If you were a fan of Meryl Streep, that means having to sit through Doubt, Mamma Mia!, and the Iron Lady. I am so confused when people decide whether or not to see a movie based on what movie stars are in them.

 

Agreed, but his style is wildly different from the generation that came next. He was hilariously sassy about it, too.

 

Actors can absolutely make or break a movie. Also, there is nothing requiring anyone to see every movie by someone who they call themselves a fan of. That's just a weird thing say.

 

Yeah I'm a big Michael B. Jordan fan but I have not seen Fantastic Four

 

Same here.

 

Actors are almost always at the mercy of the director and the script. The career of an actor is almost always going to vary much more wildly than that of a filmmaker, and there is much less to connect thematically.

Overall, acting in movies is overrated tremendously. Some of the best films ever made were filled with non-professional actors. Terrence Malick even managed to make a great movie starring Ben Affleck. The handful of master actors (DeNiro, Streep, Day-Lewis) still show up in Rocky and Bullwinkle, Mamma Mia!, and Nine.

 

Yeah I'm much more interested in writer/director than specific actors

 

So am I. Still, some actors I find interesting enough to give a shot to things I might otherwise not check out.

 

That's just such a weird idea to me. Like, a coach is the most important part of the team but players are still incredibly relevant and can absolutely take the team to the next level. I care about directors, actors, writers, and cinematographers. Manchester by the Sea is not as good without Casey Affleck. Spring Breakers was better off with James Franco than Kevin Hart. Etc...

 

Doubt is a great movie.

 

When an actor has reached a point where they don't need to do every role offered to them in order to make a living, and can instead only act in movies that interest them, I can understand someone watching a lot of stuff they're in to get an idea of what appeals to that actor

 

Kristen Stewart has great taste in projects

 

Spring Breakers and Manchester are both pretty bad examples though. Breakers was 100% Harmony Korine's vision, many people could've filled that spot. And Manchester's strength was in the screenplay as much as the acting, thats what Kenneth Lonergan is known for. Both actors were great, but I'd say the writer/director carried those films

 

That's a weird line to draw.