Unpopular Entertainment Opinions • Page 25

Well of course it would be better than with Kevin Hart, but that is not the only option. Spring Breakers is an interesting example, because it starred three former child stars with no experience in those kinds of films. Gucci Mane is great in the film, and he is not even an actor.

With Manchester by the Sea, you don't know what part of it is Affleck and what part of it is Lonergan. Lonergan's career as a director is flawless, but Affleck's career has had many bad films. Of course, actors are usually in far more films than directors can make, and Lonergan films have been exceptionally spread out. Even if Lonergan lives to 100 and keeps working, I cannot imagine him making anything as bad as Gone Baby Gone or American Pie 2, films Affleck has been in.

 

Not a lot of actors do that. DeNiro, Streep, and Pacino are not hurting for money, but they star in garbage on a regular basis.

 

Like I can't picture anyone else as Barry in Punch Drunk Love, it was Sandler's film; however, I'd say the vision came together completely because of PTA. He knew Sandler's strengths as an actor and worked with them

 

Precisely. It is not that Sandler suddenly became a great actor, and then suddenly stopped being a great actor after the film. His performance is not that different than what he did in other films, but it is everything around him that is different.

 

I'd say the actors tend to make it work more for comedies. Chris Farley was the only draw to Tommy Boy and Black Sheep, for instance

 

Of course he was. Because he rules.

Also I always loved Spencer Tracy's quip "The kids keep telling me I should try this new "Method Acting" but I'm too old, I'm too tired and I'm too talented to care."

 

Yes, but Manchester is still great at it's core. I definitely fall in the camp of not seeing movies based on what actors are in it. I understand why people do it, but there's a far greater chance of seeing a movie you don't enjoy if you're just going because of an actor imo. But I feel like most people in this thread do a little bit of research before they go see a movie. I'm speaking more to the "general audience".

Edit: I think some actors can elevate an otherwise lackluster character/story but then there are some who are ONLY great because of the material they have. I'd Punch Drunk Love was my first introduction to Adam Sandler I'd think he was amazing.

Double edit: I didn't see that Punch Drunk Love had already been mentioned

 

It depends on what you go to movies for. If you think an auteurist masterpiece is the only kind of movie worth seeing, then sure, but I'd have quit watching movies if that's how I went about it. Sometimes you want that and sometimes, you just like an actor and want to spend some time watching them on the big screen. Is Dear Brigitte a lost classic worthy of elevation to the canon? No. Is it a really enjoyable movie and totally worth the two hours you spend with Jimmy Stewart? Abso-fucking-lutely.

 

In some of those genres, yes. A lot of those directors of those Nineties comedies were completely anonymous, and the movies were basically vessels for the star. The same applies to Sandler and Dennis Dugan, who has "directed" most Sandler films.

I always felt that the lesser-known Farley films do not get enough credit. Almost Heroes is hilarious, and I remember enjoying Beverly Hills Ninja.

 

there are definitely some movies I've seen that were only for the actors, Miss Sloane comes to mind

 

Well yeah, I wouldn't use them as examples of people I would follow. Catherine Keener is someone who I pay attention to because she seems to have really cool taste. And Keanu Reeves interests me too because, though all of his recent movies haven't turned out good, I can understand why he took the roles. When you sign up for a movie, you don't know that it's going to be bad

 

You don't know for sure, but if you have Martin Scorsese offering to direct you in a dark war film and some anonymous director offering you Rocky and Bullwinkle, you pretty much know.

 

Brie Larson's performance in Room is one of the most emotionally nuanced performances I've ever seen. It astounds me every time I watch that movie. Jacob Tremblay is incredible as well, but Brie Larson gives me chills almost the entire time.

The weird thing is, she won best actress, so this shouldn't be unpopular. But I still feel like she and that performance have remained low profile. Very few people I know even know who she is.

 

If you haven't seen it yet you need to see Short Term 12. Brie is fantastic in that one as well.

 

I feel very alone in my immense love for A.I. Artificial Intelligence

 

It is pretty well regarded by people who understand what Spielberg was actually trying to do rather than an interpretation based on his past work.

 

I like it a lot. It's one of my girlfriend's favourite films.

 

Yep. Tremendous play too.

 

A lot of the disappointment with A.I. comes down to how people interpret the ending. It ends with global warming destroying the world and the main character dying after spending his last day with an imaginary parent. People took it as a happy ending because he "saw" his mother, but it was not that simplistic.

 

Interesting. Even as a kid, when I first saw the movie, I found the ending to be painfully bittersweet, but I would certainly never describe it as happy. I didn't even realize until a couple years ago that it was originally Stanley Kubrick's vision. According to Spielberg, a lot of the "sentimental" elements that people generally dislike about the movie are 100% Stanley.

Edit: most people I talk to simplify the movie to one word: Boring.

 

I watched it and, yeah, he was pretty damn likeable

 

Been dying to see it since I saw Room, but haven't yet. It's on my list!

 

Clearly you haven't seen Armageddon.

 

His performance in The Sixth Sense is really solid and understated too.

 

I don't know if this is unpopular or not but I think Jaime Camil has some of the best comedic delivery of anyone on tv. He could take the most boring line and make it hilarious.