Good, bad, and downright horrible actors/actresses?

[Timsup2nothin]

When judging an actor for always playing the same kind of roles or always staring in the same genre of movie, I also try to be mindful of the Hollywood biases, stereotypes etc at play. It's not necessarily the actors' fault if all the movie roles they are offered are typecast, racially, ethnic or otherwise. They have to work, and sometimes they have to just do the best they can with what they are offered.

Especially since the movie stars who are being handed a steady stream of 'written for you to just be you' roles are also being handed the truly gigantic paychecks. Jim Carrey can say "I want to be an actor, not just do the same Jim Carrey schtick in Jim's next thing as I did in Jim gets bitten by a vampire or Jim gets possessed by an ancient mask or Jim is a detective." But reality is that in most movies where Jim Carrey just does the Jim Carrey schtick over half the budget of the movie is his salary. Suggesting he should just skip those paydays is absurd, despite the fact that at this point saying he "has to work" is probably not exactly true.

 

[Sommerswerd]

the really good ones don't get type-cast.

I disagree. Hattie McDaniel for example, was an excellent Actress.

I'm not sure I feel all that sorry for poor movie actors.

most movies where Jim Carrey just does the Jim Carrey schtick over half the budget of the movie is his salary. Suggesting he should just skip those paydays is absurd, despite the fact that at this point saying he "has to work" is probably not exactly true.

Yeah I'm not suggesting you feel sorry for them. If they feel their lives are hard they can wipe their tears away with $1000 bills. But I do think it is unfair to claim they are 1-dimensional or something similar just based on them playing similar characters a lot of the time.

About Jim Carey "needing" to work... He might not need the money, then again, he might. I mean Jim Carey can't live in a house like the average guy in a neighborhood like the average guy. The paparazzi would be standing at his bathroom windowsill 24 hours a day. Some Celebrities have to spend 1000 times the amount of money I do just to have enough land and security to live a somewhat normal life. And even if he doesn't need money he still needs to do something with his life.

Again, its not that I "feel sorry" for the actors. I'm speaking purely in terms of how I evaluate their performance quality.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fame didn't change him a bit.

 

[aelf]

Well, Nicholas Cage has one good movie in my estimation: Lord of War.

There are some film actors I do like, but I don't think it has much to do with their actual skills - more about their presence or the roles they take up. They're certainly far from terrible, but it's hard to know how good they really are just watching them on a screen.

I think there's a certain American-esque bias in how people look at a lot of cultural stuff these days. In that vein, the contemporary idea of good acting is invariably some kind of well-executed method acting, which I find (even though it's admittedly not easy to execute) rather cheap and actually quite unprofessional when taken to Hollywood levels. Audiences look for ultra-realism as though film is not a medium but is life. It's very evident as a subject matter in Birdman, which is partly why I like the film.

I guess because of this I tend to have a bias towards British actors. Quite a lot of them seem to be theatre-trained, and that I think helps to disabuse them of a lot of the excesses and immaturity of American-style film acting. If you're performing a show live every evening - the same show with the same lines and movements - you're not going to able to rely on method acting to carry you through. You have to be professional about it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well, Nicholas Cage has one good movie in my estimation: Lord of War.

There are some film actors I do like, but I don't think it has much to do with their actual skills - more about their presence or the roles they take up. They're certainly far from terrible, but it's hard to know how good they really are just watching them on a screen.

I think there's a certain American-esque bias in how people look at a lot of cultural stuff these days. In that vein, the contemporary idea of good acting is invariably some kind of well-executed method acting, which I find (even though it's admittedly not easy to execute) rather cheap and actually quite unprofessional when taken to Hollywood levels. Audiences look for ultra-realism as though film is not a medium but is life. It's very evident as a subject matter in Birdman, which is partly why I like the film.

I guess because of this I tend to have a bias towards British actors. Quite a lot of them seem to be theatre-trained, and that I think helps to disabuse them of a lot of the excesses and immaturity of American-style film acting. If you're performing a show live every evening - the same show with the same lines and movements - you're not going to able to rely on method acting to carry you through. You have to be professional about it.

There is a lot of good stuff here.

The question "Who is a 'good' actor?" needs to be answered by other actors, and other people involved in the production.

We watch some scene and say it was brilliant. Someone involved in the production says it was the fifty-seventh take, after the entire cast and crew was kept waiting an hour because the stupid actor smeared their makeup right before they were supposed to start shooting because they showed up for work drunk.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I agree. Context is important, not just what we see on the screen, but what is going on behind the scenes, behind the production. An actor that has the means to take 6 months off to immerse themselves in a character is a little different from a person who must jump into a convincing role on-the-spot, with little or no preparation.

I remember hearing for the first time that Harrison Ford did his own stunts. I was very young, but even then I recognized that that was important, special somehow... that it made him a "better" actor than other actors.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree. Context is important, not just what we see on the screen, but what is going on behind the scenes, behind the production. An actor that has the means to take 6 months off to immerse themselves in a character is a little different from a person who must jump into a convincing role on-the-spot, with little or no preparation.

I remember hearing for the first time that Harrison Ford did his own stunts. I was very young, but even then I recognized that that was important, special somehow... that it made him a "better" actor than other actors.

Every time I hear anyone in the business mention Harrison Ford they say that working with him makes everyone involved try harder and do better. Actors usually say nice things about each other, of course, but the way they consistently pick that one nice thing when they talk about him makes me think it is probably sincere.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Every time I hear anyone in the business mention Harrison Ford they say that working with him makes everyone involved try harder and do better.

So maybe Star Wars Episode 7 will be better than the last 3?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So maybe Star Wars Episode 7 will be better than the last 3?

Getting hit repeatedly in the head with a pan is better than the last three, so it certainly seems likely.

 

[Archbob]

Will Smith has always been one of my favorites.

His son --- not so much.

 

[Commodore]

I nominate Channing Tatum for the downright horrible category. My wife has forced me to watch some of his movies and every time he speaks I can feel the intelligence leaking out of my head.

 

[Kyriakos]

Will Smith has always been one of my favorites.

His son --- not so much.

His son is a really bad actor. And 'one of the most glaring cases of hollywood nepotism'

 

[Zack]

I nominate Channing Tatum for the downright horrible category. My wife has forced me to watch some of his movies and every time he speaks I can feel the intelligence leaking out of my head.

Have you seen the Jump Street movies?

 

[Commodore]

Have you seen the Jump Street movies?

I have and they are hilarious, but Tatum is still a colossal moron who has the ability to infect others with his stupid.

EDIT: I think his best role was as himself in "This is the End" where Danny McBride turned him into Channing Taintyum.

 

[BenitoChavez]

I wonder how many times Liam Neeson can make the same movie over and over again.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I wonder how many times Liam Neeson can make the same movie over and over again.

Aren't they up to Taken 4 at this point

Johnny Depp said "Keep paying me stupid Money and I'll keep making Pirates"

 

[aelf]

There is a lot of good stuff here.

The question "Who is a 'good' actor?" needs to be answered by other actors, and other people involved in the production.

We watch some scene and say it was brilliant. Someone involved in the production says it was the fifty-seventh take, after the entire cast and crew was kept waiting an hour because the stupid actor smeared their makeup right before they were supposed to start shooting because they showed up for work drunk.

Yup, just like Edward Norton's character in Birdman. Conventionally, he would be considered a good actor because his performance on stage is 'true to life'. But in reality there's no way he could be a successful stage actor with that kind of working style. He's just not professional at all. It's like saying a regular employee can be considered good just for handing in a few good pieces of work a year and being crap the rest of the time. That's not happening.

I agree. Context is important, not just what we see on the screen, but what is going on behind the scenes, behind the production. An actor that has the means to take 6 months off to immerse themselves in a character is a little different from a person who must jump into a convincing role on-the-spot, with little or no preparation.

Even those who can improvise on the spot aren't necessarily good if it's not consistent. Preparation is still king, but of course not 6 months of "getting into character", which is very method. In fact, "getting into character" is probably the wrong approach to begin with. It should be about character study and acting, not psychological imitation.

I wonder how many times Liam Neeson can make the same movie over and over again.

Liam Neeson is one of those actors who may not be really good, but I like him in the movies featuring him that I bother to watch.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm a pretty terrible judge of actors, generally. I can tell you whether or not I liked a particular role, but I don't have a strong enough grasp of acting as a Thing to separate the actor from the context of the film. If somebody was consistently great or terrible, I suppose I could figure it out, but I don't know if I really have enough breadth of exposure to the careers of any particular actors to do that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Liam Neeson is one of those actors who may not be really good, but I like him in the movies featuring him that I bother to watch.

I dunno, I think Liam Neeson is excellent actually. He is a perfect example of an actor that I don't fault because he keeps getting paid to play the same role over and over. I have been impressed with his acting since I saw Les Miserables. I mean he is the only actor that made Episode I bearable and that alone is saying a heck of a lot because even Ewan McGregor was terrible in that.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm a pretty terrible judge of actors, generally. I can tell you whether or not I liked a particular role, but I don't have a strong enough grasp of acting as a Thing to separate the actor from the context of the film. If somebody was consistently great or terrible, I suppose I could figure it out, but I don't know if I really have enough breadth of exposure to the careers of any particular actors to do that.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I need to see an actor for a while to tease apart their performance from the script, the director, and the co-stars. I just happen to have the breadth of exposure (for better or for worse ).