Bad Movies With Great Actors [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Bad Movies With Great Actors



Defshep
10-19-2005, 10:37 AM
Worfster's comment about Christopher Walken as a scene stealer caught my attention. I feel the same way. Hell, I even sat through Envy 'cause he was in it! So it got me thinking. Which bad flicks have you endured because of great actors/performances?

noddin0ff
10-19-2005, 01:01 PM
Caddyshack

Smokey
10-19-2005, 03:44 PM
That honor might go to 1995 film Heat starring Pacino and De Niro. It could have a great movie, but it got bugged down with romance that didn't belong there, and made movie too long to watch :mad:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0006J28KU.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Woochifer
10-19-2005, 04:54 PM
That honor might go to 1995 film Heat starring Pacino and De Niro. It could have a great movie, but it got bugged down with romance that didn't belong there, and made movie too long to watch :mad:

Boy, aren't we impatient! :D

I couldn't disagree more. I thought that Heat was a brilliant movie because it did not take a formulaic approach to crime pictures. I appreciate that the movie didn't just string a bunch of hackneyed dialog together to link one action set piece to another. It took the necessary time to develop and draw out the individual characters. If you watch the special edition DVD, even the deleted scenes add a lot to an already well explored story narrative. The romance added a key element to making the De Niro character more fully drawn out. Without those human touches, he could've easily been nothing more than a typically one-dimensional baddie, and that would have totally sunk the movie.

If you think Heat is the worst of what Pacino and De Niro starred in, I invite you to spend some time with Author! Author! (Pacino) and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (De Niro)!

kexodusc
10-20-2005, 05:23 AM
What was that uber-crap film Johnny Depp did a few years back? The Ninth Gate?
Bleeechh...Man, he proved even he can stink up a theater.

noddin0ff
10-20-2005, 06:34 AM
Oh jeez, I read the question wrong. I thought it was bad movies that have endured because of great acting. Caddyshack was made great by Bill Murray. With out him it would've come close to sucky, IMO.

What truly sucky movies have I endured...that had great actors?

Hannibal
Bad Santa (I really like Thorton)
Blood Work
Entrapment

I'm sure there's more suck in the world.

Smokey
10-20-2005, 01:08 PM
Boy, aren't we impatient! :D

I couldn't disagree more. I thought that Heat was a brilliant movie because it did not take a formulaic approach to crime pictures. I appreciate that the movie didn't just string a bunch of hackneyed dialog together to link one action set piece to another. It took the necessary time to develop and draw out the individual characters.

I am not an anti romance guy, but when it intefer with a movie plot, IMO it take away the effectiveness of movie. They could have dealt with romance at beginning and have it sidelined with story, but they choose to do high a octane scene, leave it, follow by melodrama, high octane scene and then again follow with melodrama, and on and on.

We could have saparated action and romance stories in two movies and wouldn’t know either one is related to one another. :)

Lexmark3200
10-20-2005, 01:35 PM
I totally agree that HEAT is a fantastic crime picture whose pacing is deliberate by Michael Mann and sets the entire feel of the film -- a wonderful film that I recently purchased the double disc Special Edition of.

My nod for the original question for the thread has to go to COPLAND, which was not a BAD film per se, but the great actors involved -- Stallone, DeNiro, Liotta, Keitel, Rappaport -- seemed like they had nothing to work with in terms of the screenplay.

Anyone else agree about COPLAND?

Woochifer
10-20-2005, 02:01 PM
I am not an anti romance guy, but when it intefer with a movie plot, IMO it take away the effectiveness of movie. They could have dealt with romance at beginning and have it sidelined with story, but they choose to do high a octane scene, leave it, follow by melodrama, high octane scene and then again follow with melodrama, and on and on.

We could have saparated action and romance stories in two movies and wouldn’t know either one is related to one another.

And that's precisely what I like about Heat -- that the movie did not choose to segregate the action sets from the background goings with the characters. IMO, everything swirling in the background was integral to identifying with the characters when they got into these high stakes confrontations. The De Niro character in particular was much more fully realized (and ultimately a tragic figure) because he chose to let his guard down.


My nod for the original question for the thread has to go to COPLAND, which was not a BAD film per se, but the great actors involved -- Stallone, DeNiro, Liotta, Keitel, Rappaport -- seemed like they had nothing to work with in terms of the screenplay.

Anyone else agree about COPLAND?

Copland was an embarassment of riches with the casting, yet it made the movie a lot more interesting than it might have been otherwise. I liked that movie because it did not resort to a lot of cop drama cliches, and using Stallone as cop just trying to get by with failed ambitions while all these big city cops living in the neighborhood treat him like crap was very effective. Overall, I liked that the movie steered away from turning into an action pic, and tried to develop the plot with a more deliberate and dialog-driven delivery. The only part that I thought was out of place was the gunfight at the end.

Lexmark3200
10-20-2005, 02:09 PM
"Copland was an embarassment of riches with the casting, yet it made the movie a lot more interesting than it might have been otherwise."

Right; that's what I was saying with regard to CopLand; it seemed a waste of talent was exhibited here.....a lineup of names that really stood out in no way, especially Stallone's sad performance. But it still warranted a DVD purchase for me because Im just hooked on the film for different reasons I really cant put into words.

"The only part that I thought was out of place was the gunfight at the end."

The director makes a comment on the Exclusive Director's Cut of the DVD (search for my review on this title in the archives) that what he was going for was a "Urban Western," and he saw Stallone as the only guy who could bring these lawless men to justice.....by his own pistol. Mark Marigold explains this in the commentary.

Defshep
10-20-2005, 03:07 PM
Copland reminded me of a tv movie of the week with a five-star cast. I kind of feel the same way about Mystic River. Great cast, just decent film. Mystic River had a slightly better execution.

vxaudio
10-20-2005, 07:22 PM
BATTLEFIELD EARTH john travolta would have done better by making a 2 hour dance video with nursing home residents crapping on him.

vxaudio
10-20-2005, 07:28 PM
don't forget GIGLI and COLD MOUNTAIN i swear all that time then he dies, i think i stared at the tv for 5 minutes thinking i was going to have a break down

ALEXANDER crossed Colin Farrell off my list for good, i mean come on, just have sex with your manfriend.