Most Annoying Actors.

[Smokey]

There is quite few of them on my list, but my top three have to be Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts. And Brad Pitt is on the borderline :)

Anyone top your list?

[Jack in Wilmington]

Oh yea. There are a bunch of actors that I can't even watch in a movie. Starting with Will Ferrell, he ruins every movie he's in. Owen Wilson is right up there too. They cast him as the romantic interest in a movie and the actress should get an award for pulling that acting job off. Seth Rogen, just couldn't buy him with Katherine Heigl in Knocked Up. Ben Stiller is a hit or miss for me also.

[PeruvianSkies]

Shia Lebouf, Katie Holmes, Keanu Reeves, Drew Berrymore, Ashton Kutcher, Ben Affleck, Renee Zellweger, Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, Sarah Jessica Parker, Matthew McConaughey, Kate Hudson, Tea Leoni, Jessica Alba, Meg Ryan, Kevin Costner, Jennifer Garner, Helen Hunt, and the list goes on.....

[Worf101]

Talk about shooting fish in a barrell....

Will Ferrell - Ain't funny, never was funny never will be funny.

David Spade - I wanna beat this little ***** like a pinata whenever I see him. Smarmy little loudmouth!

Adam Sandler - He's why Saturday Night Live should be cancelled so no more of his ilk slither out.

Jennifer Aniston - Whiney no tallent skank

Sarah Jessica Parker - Horse Face Harriett.

Steven Segal - Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Cuba Gooding Jr. - Like U.S.C Football he oughtta give that Oscar back.

Whoppi Goldberg - See above.

Tyler Perry - Just what we need, a cross dressing step n' fetchit. All he's missing is black-face and a fried chicken necklace round his neck.

Ice T - Can't rap, can't act, can't go away fast enough.

This is just off the top of my head, I'm not even warmed up yet!!!!

Worf

[ForeverAutumn]

There is quite few of them on my list, but my top three have to be Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts. And Brad Pitt is on the borderline :)

Anyone top your list?

I'll see your Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts and I'll raise you a Vince Vaughn and a Jeff Goldblum.

[Jack in Wilmington]

I'll see your Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts and I'll raise you a Vince Vaughn and a Jeff Goldblum.

I guess between the two of us we hated "Wedding Crashers" because I got the other two bozos on my list. I liked Jeff Goldblum in Jurrasic Park and Independence Day. Maybe not anything else though.

[Troy]

Tyler Perry - Just what we need, a cross dressing step n' fetchit. All he's missing is black-face and a fried chicken necklace round his neck.

Too funny.

[PeruvianSkies]

Are we talking about actors/actresses who are annoying (as in them as people, not as actors or actresses) or are we talking about them being annoying in a particular role, or are we talking about them being annoying no matter what role they are in, or are we talking about them being annoying both as a person and as an actor/actress?

My list comprises of actors or actresses who I think are consistently annoying in just about any role that they are in. There are of course certain actors or actresses who are annoying in certain roles, but sometimes that is their 'character' they are playing, while there are of course certain people who are just annoying in their social life (like Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt), yet I like them in movies, most people forget about films like:

A MIGHTY HEART or Brad Pitt in SNATCH, FIGHT CLUB, BENJAMIN BUTTON and only focus on junk like MR. AND MRS. SMITH.

[3LB]

The Wilson brothers - Luke is tiresome, Owen is incompetent at everything he's attempted

Chris Tucker - he's JJ Walker and Charlie Chan's chauffuer rolled into one

Jackie Chan - a novelty act at best

Tom Cruise - dick

Shia LeBouf - sorry Speilberg, not buying into this dude as an action hero/ romantic lead

Seth Rogen - not too bothered by him yet, but didn't his beauty-n-beast thing w/ Heigl.

SNL alum - all of them are/were fine in supporting roles and ensemble casts, but are insufferable in lead roles. Will Ferrel however, is prolly the worst ever.

[Smokey]

Wow, looking at your list, there are more actors and actresses that are annoying than I thought. And to answer Peruviansky question, ther are probably annoying in any roles thet are playing.

But kind of disagree with Worf's Whoppi Goldberg. I find her funny in the right role.

[bobsticks]

Watching "Yes Man" just reminded how much Jim Carrey annoys me when he attempts to deliver a message or be serious...

...I also can't stand Robin Williams under the same circumstances. I've paid to see his stand-up routines but nothing will drive me from a room faster...

Many already mentioned...Shia LeBouf (whatta twerp), Whoopi, I love Worf's take on Tyler Perry, Keanu Reeves, Richard Dryfus, I could sit here for hours...

To make it worse, if one includes television actors/actresses it becomes almost unbearable. I can't imagine being in the same room with the entire cast of Seinfeld...ugh.
That Joan River's look alike from The Closer should be on the cover of Field and Stream with a hook in her mouth.

[Dual-500]

I'll see your Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts and I'll raise you a Vince Vaughn and a Jeff Goldblum.
I'll see his Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts and your Vince Vaughn & Jeff Goldblum and raise the list with EVERYONE involved in Kick Ass - cast and crew.

I still can't believe I let a buddy talk me into renting the PPV $4.99 for that crap.

Told me the martial arts were good. There are no martial arts in Kick Ass. Just some sh!tty special effects and crappy cinematography interwoven with a bad sound track.

Nicolas Cage wasn't even any good in Kick Ass. Ghost Rider and just about everything else he's ever done I like.

But not Kick Ass. :dita:

[Jack in Wilmington]

I'll see his Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts and your Vince Vaughn & Jeff Goldblum and raise the list with EVERYONE involved in Kick Ass - cast and crew.

I still can't believe I let a buddy talk me into renting the PPV $4.99 for that crap.

Told me the martial arts were good. There are no martial arts in Kick Ass. Just some sh!tty special effects and crappy cinematography interwoven with a bad sound track.

Nicolas Cage wasn't even any good in Kick Ass. Ghost Rider and just about everything else he's ever done I like.

But not Kick Ass. :dita:

That's odd that you mention KickAss. I bunch of guys at work said it was great and I thought well what are their tastes in movies. Then the CNN movie critic was doing his top 10 movies for the first half of 2010 and he picked KickAss as his #2 movie.

[02audionoob]

Matthew McConaughey, Sally Field

[Dual-500]

That's odd that you mention KickAss. I bunch of guys at work said it was great and I thought well what are their tastes in movies. Then the CNN movie critic was doing his top 10 movies for the first half of 2010 and he picked KickAss as his #2 movie.
I don't know - I'll accept I just missed the boat. But to me it just didn't work.

Watch it for yourself and let me know.

I discussed with my buddy and he was a little dissapointed I didn't like it. According to him it's more or less a spoof on comic book hero's.

I just couldn't connect with it as such. The movie never really took a set in any direction long enough to take me along for the ride.

It has too much graphic violence for a spoof, language doesn't fit nerd adolescent and pre-adolescent types. Action scenes are weak, fight scenes look like they were blocked and choreographed by a sophomore level film student. Sound track was just not connected with the action at several points. And on and on.

Sub plot was kinda ok - but the character interaciton between son and evil father wasn't really convincing.

Nothing close to the level of Austin Powers for instance which I really liked.

Again, maybe it's just a style that doesn't suit me - but, I thought it sucked bad.

Sorry for the thread jack. :hand:

[Jack in Wilmington]

I don't know - I'll accept I just missed the boat. But to me it just didn't work.

Watch it for yourself and let me know.

I discussed with my buddy and he was a little dissapointed I didn't like it. According to him it's more or less a spoof on comic book hero's.

I just couldn't connect with it as such. The movie never really took a set in any direction long enough to take me along for the ride.

It has too much graphic violence for a spoof, language doesn't fit nerd adolescent and pre-adolescent types. Action scenes are weak, fight scenes look like they were blocked and choreographed by a sophomore level film student. Sound track was just not connected with the action at several points. And on and on.

Sub plot was kinda ok - but the character interaciton between son and evil father wasn't really convincing.

Nothing close to the level of Austin Powers for instance which I really liked.

Again, maybe it's just a style that doesn't suit me - but, I thought it sucked bad.

Sorry for the thread jack. :hand:

That's OK Steve. I'll have to watch it myself. It will be interesting, because I couldn't stand Austin Powers. I didn't find him at all funny, just stupid. So we do see things differently. I just got my home theater up and running again, so I'll try and watch it. Jack

[GMichael]

Queen Latifah in anything. Just can't stand the attitude.

[Worf101]

Queen Latifah in anything. Just can't stand the attitude.
Ruh Roh!!!!!!

Oh no you dent!!!!!!

Man are you mad???? My list was easy, there's no one on mine that could physically kick my arse, cept mebbe fat boy Segal and all have to do is distract his ass with a Pork Chop and I'm good. Your insult of her Royal Badness is fixin to get us both a beat down. Now in case you didn't know it Queen Latifah, while of questionable talents as an actress, is one serious woman. She's not "pretend" from the Streets like J-Lo, this woman will kick your skinny ass and mine too!! Why me? Cause I'd have to jump-in to save you cause your kids too cute to be an orphan... Hey man watch yerself.

Worf

[GMichael]

Ruh Roh!!!!!!

Oh no you dent!!!!!!

Man are you mad???? My list was easy, there's no one on mine that could physically kick my arse, cept mebbe fat boy Segal and all have to do is distract his ass with a Pork Chop and I'm good. Your insult of her Royal Badness is fixin to get us both a beat down. Now in case you didn't know it Queen Latifah, while of questionable talents as an actress, is one serious woman. She's not "pretend" from the Streets like J-Lo, this woman will kick your skinny ass and mine too!! Why me? Cause I'd have to jump-in to save you cause your kids too cute to be an orphan... Hey man watch yerself.

Worf

I'd rather have her kick my a$$ than to have to sit through any movie she's in. I'll take my lumps with a smile.
Thanks for the help, but I'll be OK. My 4'7" wifey is a LOT tougher than she looks.

[Worf101]

I'd rather have her kick my a$$ than to have to sit through any movie she's in. I'll take my lumps with a smile.
Thanks for the help, but I'll be OK. My 4'7" wifey is a LOT tougher than she looks.
Okay when that 200 plus pounds of pissed off pulchritude is finished pounding you into next month let me know where you want your teeth sent.

Dave

[Hyfi]

I will have to second or third Jennifer Aniston and just about everyone else from Friends. She just plain sucks in every role I have seen her in.

Nicholas Cage is another lifeless, one act droog but I did like the movie Ghost Rider.

Tom Hanks has always been at the top of my can't stand list. He was cast in way too many movies and usually did not fit the part. Yeah, that candy ass would never have been a Prison Guard like in the Green Mile. I don't think he was acting at all in Forest Gump, it was just him.

I think Seinfeld is a funny Stand Up comic but again, everyone on his show including him was just plain annoying.

I also can't stand Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts.

[GMichael]

Okay when that 200 plus pounds of pissed off pulchritude is finished pounding you into next month let me know where you want your teeth sent.

Dave

If you ever met my older sister you would understand that this is how I spent most of my teen years. My teeth are in a jar under my bed.

[Dual-500]

That's OK Steve. I'll have to watch it myself. It will be interesting, because I couldn't stand Austin Powers. I didn't find him at all funny, just stupid. So we do see things differently. I just got my home theater up and running again, so I'll try and watch it. Jack
Exactly. It's ok to differ bro. Do watch KA and PM me your impressions of the movie.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ruh Roh!!!!!!

Oh no you dent!!!!!!

Man are you mad???? My list was easy, there's no one on mine that could physically kick my arse, cept mebbe fat boy Segal and all have to do is distract his ass with a Pork Chop and I'm good. Your insult of her Royal Badness is fixin to get us both a beat down. Now in case you didn't know it Queen Latifah, while of questionable talents as an actress, is one serious woman. She's not "pretend" from the Streets like J-Lo, this woman will kick your skinny ass and mine too!! Why me? Cause I'd have to jump-in to save you cause your kids too cute to be an orphan... Hey man watch yerself.

Worf

Gotta second this because I have her back! :hand:

Now Worf, I understand that Mr. Perry is not a favorite among da brudda's, but can't you cut him a little slack? I happen to like all of his movies and plays, he ain't that bad. And Sarah J., she is the epitome of New York fashion, do you really want to spew that hate in her direction? Come on....yes she has a horse face, but she has made women all over this country very happy with her movies.

How could you hate on Whoopi, she is intelligent, wise, and very articulate. What's to hate?

(Sir T changes his tone from a softer one to a more stern hard one)

The rest of the chowder heads on your list belong on your list!

Alright(as Sir T looks around the room:skep:), who is hatin on Jackie Chan? We gonna have to talk, or you are going to have to duck, because out comes the 5 day old gefilte fish across the chops for that!:mad5:

I am amazed at how many folks hate the actors that I like, and how many actually hate the ones I hate as well. Quite interesting for sure......

[Worf101]

Gotta second this because I have her back! :hand:

Now Worf, I understand that Mr. Perry is not a favorite among da brudda's, but can't you cut him a little slack? I happen to like all of his movies and plays, he ain't that bad. And Sarah J., she is the epitome of New York fashion, do you really want to spew that hate in her direction? Come on....yes she has a horse face, but she has made women all over this country very happy with her movies.

How could you hate on Whoopi, she is intelligent, wise, and very articulate. What's to hate?

(Sir T changes his tone from a softer one to a more stern hard one)

The rest of the chowder heads on your list belong on your list!

Alright(as Sir T looks around the room:skep:), who is hatin on Jackie Chan? We gonna have to talk, or you are going to have to duck, because out comes the 5 day old gefilte fish across the chops for that!:mad5:

I am amazed at how many folks hate the actors that I like, and how many actually hate the ones I hate as well. Quite interesting for sure......
Worf looks up, looks down whistles quietly to himself and tries mightly to hold it in but can't....

Mwa ha ha ha ha!!!!!! You are a good friend, I'd go to war with you any day of the week, you've given me more audio information than anyone I know and you're a nice guy to boot BUT (you knew there was one comin din'tcha?) some of your tastes in actors and movies SUCKS!!!!!! SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SCUKS!!!!!!

I know you love ole horseface, but this Whoopi fetish is just plain sad... and the Tyler Perry comment Ye Gads man put the crack pipe down!!!! LOL, in all seriousness, we like what we like. This post certainly made me laugh and I've had one crappy week thus far... Thanks.

Worf

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Worf looks up, looks down whistles quietly to himself and tries mightly to hold it in but can't....

Mwa ha ha ha ha!!!!!! You are a good friend, I'd go to war with you any day of the week, you've given me more audio information than anyone I know and you're a nice guy to boot BUT (you knew there was one comin din'tcha?) some of your tastes in actors and movies SUCKS!!!!!! SUCK SUCK SUCK SUCK SCUKS!!!!!!

:frown5: Could you spare my feeling just a little?:yesnod:


I know you love ole horseface, but this Whoopi fetish is just plain sad... and the Tyler Perry comment Ye Gads man put the crack pipe down!!!! LOL, in all seriousness, we like what we like. This post certainly made me laugh and I've had one crappy week thus far... Thanks.

Worf

I don't know if I like Sarah all that much, I like watching her movies because they take me to places in the city that I am familiar with. I used to be a model in my young years, so I understand her mentality, even if I think it is a bit much. I think I miss my city a bit, and this brings back a bit of home when I can't get there.

I do like Whoopi for the reasons I mention. She also makes me laugh.

I like Perry because he created a character that reminds me so much of my mother that it is scary. I guess watching him do Medea reminds me so much of the things I liked so much about my mother, the craziness, the boldness, and the respect. She was always saying that if we didn't do what she says, she was going to punch us in the throat(she did have seven boys to deal with). She did pack on occasion, but most of all she was just plain funny as hell. She gone, but he does fondly remind me of her. I like the messages he delivers through his movies, and I like the fact he went from homelessness to a millionaire which does speak to the fact that it is hard to do so these days, but he made it. Being tenacious can pay off, I know that from personal experience.

[bobsticks]

I am amazed at how many folks hate the actors that I like, and how many actually hate the ones I hate as well. Quite interesting for sure......

Yeah, it gets difficult when one speaks in absolutes.

For instance, I'm not a really big fan of either Jennifer Anniston or Will Farrell but they both have a movie or two in which I think they've excelled...and a many more in which they've sucked...

[PeruvianSkies]

This is why I love when an actor/actress does a role that is redeeming for them. I can think of several great examples where I hated a particular actor, but then they landed the right role to fit their "type" and began liking them for it. One that sticks out really well is Ben Stiller....

I was so annoyed by this guy many years ago in roles like REALITY BITES or similar roles around that era, even MEET THE PARENTS. Then he did ZOOLANDER, which is a horrible movie, but he started to figure out that he needs to play those types of roles and hit it on the money with DODGEBALL. Of course, now he pretty much plays that same character in variations ever since, same can be said for Will Farrell, but wow....when he gets the right role, like STEP BROTHERS, it works beautiful. It goes quite south though when it doesn't all tie together, like SEMI-PRO or even large parts of ANCHORMAN, which basically feels like one long SNL skit that loses it's "funny" more often than not.

[ForeverAutumn]

Nicholas Cage is another lifeless, one act droog but I did like the movie Ghost Rider.

Cage has certainly filmed some real duds, but man when he is good I just LOVE him! He's great in more offbeat roles, like in Wild at Heart, Bringing Out the Dead, Adaptation, or Matchstick Men. But then he does crap like City Of Angels or Family Man and it's really hard for me to like him.

I have a serious love/hate relationship with him.

[Auricauricle]

I just can't get my head wrapped around Ben Affected....

[bobsticks]

Cage has certainly filmed some real duds, but man when he is good I just LOVE him! He's great in more offbeat roles, like in Wild at Heart, Bringing Out the Dead, Adaptation, or Matchstick Men. But then he does crap like City Of Angels or Family Man and it's really hard for me to like him.

I have a serious love/hate relationship with him.

Watch Vampire's Kiss and you'll realize he has not grown in his craft. He needs to do something artistically inspiring like running a missionary in the Sudan for a year or developing a heroin addiction.

[bobsticks]

I just can't get my head wrapped around Ben Affected....

So, if it was discovered that Skank-Lo gave him the clap he'd be Ben Afflicted?

[PeruvianSkies]

Watch Vampire's Kiss and you'll realize he has not grown in his craft. He needs to do something artistically inspiring like running a missionary in the Sudan for a year or developing a heroin addiction.

Yeah, I mean......I guess I just have accepted the Cage is just not a great actor....he has moments. Ever see WILD AT HEART? To me though, I am not so much annoyed by him as I just tolerate him... there are far worse.

[bobsticks]

Wild At Heart is another good one. Frankly my annoyance comes from disillusionment. I always figured if he could summon that knd of quirkiness he'd have potential to do truly great things. Nowadays I'm of the opinion that he just may be a crazy bastard.

[PeruvianSkies]

Wild At Heart is another good one. Frankly my annoyance comes from disillusionment. I always figured if he could summon that knd of quirkiness he'd have potential to do truly great things. Nowadays I'm of the opinion that he just may be a crazy bastard.

Yeah, especially when that quirkiness is just a bit too much, like in THE ROCK or most especially in CON AIR and FACE/OFF. Those were borderline annoying, I'll give ya that!

[ForeverAutumn]

Wild At Heart is another good one. Frankly my annoyance comes from disillusionment. I always figured if he could summon that knd of quirkiness he'd have potential to do truly great things. Nowadays I'm of the opinion that he just may be a crazy bastard.

I see exactly where you're coming from. Up until Leaving Las Vegas, he could do little wrong IMO. I think that once he won his Oscar, people started to take more notice of him. He turned in the really good, quirky roles, for the big money Hollywood schlock. I don't blame him for wanting the big money...who doesn't. But I think that Oscar win was his demise. At least in my mind.

There was a time when I saw every movie he made. That ended after Con Air and The Rock. Nicolas Cage as "action hero" just didn't do it for me.

[theaudiohobby]

Cage has certainly filmed some real duds, but man when he is good I just LOVE him! He's great in more offbeat roles, like in Wild at Heart, Bringing Out the Dead, Adaptation, or Matchstick Men. But then he does crap like City Of Angels or Family Man and it's really hard for me to like him.

I have a serious love/hate relationship with him.I gotta disagree on Family Man, great concept, great movie. The reflective theme of the movie gels with me, I supposed I also loved Truman Show(Jim Carey,this time), which was cut from the same cloth. I happen think Cage is a great actor.

[bobsticks]

I gotta disagree on Family Man, great concept, great movie. The reflective theme of the movie gels with me, I supposed I also loved Truman Show(Jim Carey,this time), which was cut from the same cloth. I happen think Cage is a great actor.

...OTOH, I think Nick Cage has been playing Nick Cage playing a quirky guy for 15 years :D

Different strokes for different folks...

[Auricauricle]

Sticks and FA got it right, with their comments about "Nick Cage playing Nick Cage" and the sense that Cage "could do little wrong"....Cage is a very competent actor, sometimes a darn good one. Unfortunately, he has a penchant for putting himself in roles where the Incredibility Factor (IF) is off the charts. This, IMO, diminishes Cage's ability to pull off what he is most capable of: acting. Seeing him in movies like The Rock, Face-Off, and National Treasure have turned Cage into an animatron for adolescents and armchair adventurers. Still, the guy can act, and when he's good, he's really something to watch. See him in Birdy or Red Rock West. He'll show you that, in spite of his damned, quirky ways, he can still pull off a good lick or two.

[ForeverAutumn]

I forgot about Birdy. An excellent film!

[RGA]

it's rare that an actor ruins a movie - it's almost always the writing or direction that makes or breaks a film.

Nicolas Cage has made some bad movies he's made some good ones. You can always question the choice an actor makes - sometimes it looks better on the page and it gets ruined by the direction.

One of my favorite actors is Ralph Fiennes and I like Uma Thurman and I like Sean Connery. I grew up in Wales for a time and one of my favorite shows was called the Avengers. This show was a kindof James Bond series with a male lead John Steed and female partner Emma Peel who was his equal in crime fighting. Good crisp dialogue interesting and unusual stories a little off beat and some lovely double entendre dialog. Really there is more substance and meat to this than a Bond story.

So they get Raph Fiennes and Uma Thurman in the catsuit and Connery playing against type as the villain. Big budget - I was so excited to see it and it turned out to be one of if not the worst movies of the year - maybe one of the worst of the decade.

There wasn't anything the actors could really do - the lines were just so dispicably vapid and the plot was as dimwitted as most of the Batman movies (without Michael Caine).

Actors like Jennifer Aniston and before her Meg Ryan become famous at playing a certain character. Aniston play Rachel on Friends the bubbly firend and pretty much every role she is offered will be the same general character. She does the bubbly thing so well that it is a bankable commodity. Film makers look at the bottom line - she is a kind of guarantee. It's very difficult for her to break away against type. There is a whole media engine that will try and stop her if she tries. The actress that played Phebe gets almost the identical role all the time as well.

We really don't get to see their true acting chops and I would say it's harder for women to get those juicy roles. Aniston is the new Meg Ryan - romantic comedy lead she does it well.

Kevin Costner gets beat up as well - the argument against him is "he doesn't seem to act" which I always thought was the point of a decent actor. Costner will never make a mediocre film into a good film like perhaps a Jack Nicholson or Dustin Hoffman can - but Costner is capable enough not to really detract from movies. He said it himself that he can't make a movie great so he chooses movies that are good and rides them. I think he has done a fine job of selecting some good films to be in like Field of Dreams, JFK, No Way Out, Bull Durham, Dances with Wolves and a few others. He also made Waterworld so no one is perfect.

It's probably not that Aniston or Costner are bad so much as people feel other actors who are barely known are just as good if not better and live in relative obscurity. I think one of the best actresses I have watched is Jennifer Carpenter who plays Deborah Morgan on the HBO Showtime Dexter. She has a tremendous amount of versatility in this show and it's a rich role to play. But it's a TV series - to me she's a better actress than Aniston but she doesn't look like Aniston or Jolie or have the famous roles behind her.

Lastly, I liked Cage in the Rock - I liked the Rock. Cage was playing the wimpy sidekick so I would not really compare his performance to the muscle action hero in Con Air. The Rock was a big action spectacle with some good one liners, special effects and Sean Connery playing a retired version of his James Bond. It was a hoot.

[bobsticks]

stuff.

RGA this was a great post. I tried to give you Greenies despite the fact that I disagree with a few of your points and, really, my gun was jammed...

Point by point:
~I love Ralph Fiennes and Sean Connery and Uma is tops too...yes, a bad movie but almost watchable just to see such skilled craftspeople struggle within a clearly broken system.

~Yes, Lisa Kudrow gets typecast all the time

~Aniston v Meg Ryan...maybe if you're a girl...

~Kevin Costner is a complete douchebag...in fact I'm ashamed of myself for not having thought of him earlier. I'd rather watch ten Tom Cruise movies than anything he's done...

~It is that they're that bad...and it's nothing against character actors like Carpenter who cut their chops for a living...there are plenty of unsung heroes out there.

~I liked The Rock too...but that doesn't mean that a dozen other actors couldn't have pulled it off as well. The whole, "Let's cut the chit-chat (winces; points) A-HOLE(nods head from side to side)...dealio was an unnecessary contrivance...so was all that bullshyte about a peach in CON-AIR...just another reason to use an affected accent...

[RGA]

You are certainly correct that there is a lot of that wink wink to the camera and "traits" that certain actors bring like the Cage drolling voice and head tilts and even Mel Gibson had such "mannerism" back in his hey day Letha Weapon days.

A film like the Rock in better hands could have been something but they dumb it down. It still starts and ends with the director and the writers though. A good director controls the performance of the actors. Brukheimmer and Bay productions are usually shlock. Everything is over the top including the acting. But I think despite the over acting Cage and Connery managed to get above it with the tongue in cheek mannerisms. Though the movie the Rock divided a lot of people including critics.

I think Cage is a fine actor but he needs to choose films directed by talented people like Figgis. A Director that is making a film about actual people not cartoon characters like his character in the Rock. I like the Rock but it could have been a GREAT film in the hands of a better director. I liked the storytline - I liked the Ed Harris Character and the fact that the "bad guy" was not so one dimensional because he had a legitimate cause. They even had the acting talent to pull it off but Bay turned it into a cartoon action film. I still gave it ***/***** (3 stars to be recommended).

The only well known actor that doesn't do much for me is Keanu Reeves. He's never really brought anything to any movie I have seen him in.

One Actor I really wish had done more is James Spader. He was so good on Boston Legal and the Practice and he often chose strange characters in his film career.

As for Ralph Fiennes - it was interesting that when he was making the Cronenberg movie Spider that they could not complete the film due to budget. Fiennes took two movies to help finance Spider and for his directorial debut which is coming out soon (Coriolanus). He did Maid in Manhatten and Red Dragon and the Potter movies. Sometimes they do movies they don't really want to do in order to pay for something they do want to do. Michael Caine did Jaws 4 because he needed to buy a house LOL.

The sad part is the great actors sometimes have to sell out a bit in order to get the "star" appeal so that they can do the projects dear to their heart. Fiennes strikes me as that sort of actor. You can't keep doing small independants that no one sees if you want to ask a studio to give you 50 million for something you want. Obviously Coriolanus will have virtually no appeal with the North American Audiences and looks like it is costly to make. Clearly Fiennes is doing it because he wants to make it because he loves Shakespeare.

[PeruvianSkies]

Yeah.... he's a real tool. However, he sometimes manages to be in movies that would or could be good regardless of who is in them. But, for the most part he manages to pull of some of the worst things to hit celluloid time and time again, so let's simply list the films he was in that were actually worth seeing:

THE UNTOUCHABLES - brilliant little DePalma gem that has one of the best gunfight scenes of all time, of course it steals the "steps" scene from Battleship Potemkin in true homage fashion.

FIELD OF DREAMS - despite his woodenness, the essence of baseball is portrayed wonderfully in true Americana fashion.

DANCES WITH WOLVES - somehow he even directed this film and no matter how hard I try to forget about that fact, it's still a really well-done film on all levels. Dang it.

JFK - insanely well-done film by Oliver Stone.

THIRTEEN DAYS - an overlooked film, but solid and worth a viewing.

OPEN RANGE - spectacular modern Western. Robert Duvall saves the film.

I've often said that Kevin Costner's greatest acting role was in THE BIG CHILL....hopefully everyone gets the joke.

[Hyfi]

DANCES WITH WOLVES - somehow he even directed this film and no matter how hard I try to forget about that fact, it's still a really well-done film on all levels. Dang it.



I love the movie for what it is and what it's about. However, it could have been at least an hour shorter if he didn't do so many shots of just staring at himself.

[RGA]

I love the movie for what it is and what it's about. However, it could have been at least an hour shorter if he didn't do so many shots of just staring at himself.

Yeah Directing is one skill but editing is something else.

of course I felt the LOTR movies could have been edited down to one 2 hour movie. It's not like there was a significant intricate plot.:incazzato:

[Feanor]

There is quite few of them on my list, but my top three have to be Tom Green, Jack Black and Julia Roberts. And Brad Pitt is on the borderline :)

Anyone top your list?
Adam Sandler :rolleyes5:

[Auricauricle]

RGA: Although I like your argument, I dont't entirely agree with your point that a movie "starts and ends with the director and the writers". While certainly they exert much influence on the overall production, I would posit that the actors are equally acountable for how their characters present themselves. I have read accounts of the work of Harrison Ford, i.e., who is known to collaborate with the crew, and offers suggestions for dialogue and delivery. Saying this, I would think that if Cage was equally assertive, he would exert himself in a similar way. Instead, it appears that he was either mute or indifferent, leaving behind a performance that is lazy and banal.

[Dual-500]

The actors are absolutely responsible.

HOWEVER:

Film/video/CD/CACD/DVD any storage tool thats used is the Directors medium. What you see is a final product that was under their exclusive control.

Live performancs is the actor/musician/performers medium. You see what the performer does - period. The performer controls what you see and hear - the real deal.

[PeruvianSkies]

The actors are absolutely responsible.

HOWEVER:

Film/video/CD/CACD/DVD any storage tool thats used is the Directors medium. What you see is a final product that was under their exclusive control.

Live performancs is the actor/musician/performers medium. You see what the performer does - period. The performer controls what you see and hear - the real deal.

The director is more often than not just a Studio Exec. Biyotch. There are some directors who get creative license, but usually only after they make commercially successful films, Martin Scorsese is known for saying "I make 2 for them, then 1 for me", which quite simply means that he makes 2 films that are box office draws and then uses that money to make something that is more artsy.

Stanley Kubrick is one of the last directors to truly have 100% artistic license with his films and the results are incredible, although not always big money-makers, their legacy lives on. Of course, we have Indie Filmmakers out there who do things like Kevin Smith and make their first film on credit cards and hope that it works out, CLERKS paid off for him, but it was a risk that doesn't always work out. Of course, years later he still has yet to make a film as good as CLERKS, even with the big budgets he has had since.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yeah Directing is one skill but editing is something else.

of course I felt the LOTR movies could have been edited down to one 2 hour movie. It's not like there was a significant intricate plot.:incazzato:

If it was cut down to just two hours, the whole epic nature of the entire series would have been completely lost. What actually made those movies was the extended cuts of each one. Having now seen the theatrical cuts on Blu ray, I can see these are quite inferior to the extended versions. The extended versions really flesh out the detail of these movies so they actually make more sense. It is just hard as hell to sit on your azz for so long!

[AVMASTER]

Sookie Stackhouse, she's hot as hell but even more annoying

[Dual-500]

The director is more often than not just a Studio Exec. Biyotch. There are some directors who get creative license, but usually only after they make commercially successful films, Martin Scorsese is known for saying "I make 2 for them, then 1 for me", which quite simply means that he makes 2 films that are box office draws and then uses that money to make something that is more artsy.

Stanley Kubrick is one of the last directors to truly have 100% artistic license with his films and the results are incredible, although not always big money-makers, their legacy lives on. Of course, we have Indie Filmmakers out there who do things like Kevin Smith and make their first film on credit cards and hope that it works out, CLERKS paid off for him, but it was a risk that doesn't always work out. Of course, years later he still has yet to make a film as good as CLERKS, even with the big budgets he has had since.
Can't argue with that. My exposure with it comes more from the live theatre side of the house both in experience and what I was taught in the drama 101 part of me schoolin.

[JoeE SP9]

Sir T, I'm also one of those brothers who can't stand Tyler Perry. IMO his movies suck, his plays suck, his TV sitcoms suck and the character Medea should be lynched.
The character Medea seems to go against everything that MLK and his contemporaries worked for and in some cases died for.

I do agree with you on LOTR.

[PeruvianSkies]

Can't argue with that. My exposure with it comes more from the live theatre side of the house both in experience and what I was taught in the drama 101 part of me schoolin.

Pick up the 3-disc box set of Terry Gilliam's 1985 film BRAZIL, in it you will find a 90-minute version of the film that the studio forced and the longer 142-minute version of the film that Gilliam wanted and the only version of the film that makes any sense at all. The 90-minute is an outrage and missing so much material that the film doesn't even make a lick of sense. What is also cool is that you can listen to Gilliam's commentary on his version and you can listen to him talk about how bizarre and blatantly dumb the cuts were on the shorter studio version, which of course was trying to get something that was A. shorter for commercial use and promotion and B. happier.

There is also a bonus disc that talks about the war that waged between Gilliam and Universal and how bogus the entire thing was.

It's a MUST.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T, I'm also one of those brothers who can't stand Tyler Perry. IMO his movies suck, his plays suck, his TV sitcoms suck and the character Medea should be lynched.

:eek6: Oh my, I can just see the steam comin from ya! :yikes:


The character Medea seems to go against everything that MLK and his contemporaries worked for and in some cases died for.

Joe, now that's a bit harsh, for the love of dead presidents! But what about all of the great messages in his work:frown5:

Now I knew the brotha's didn't care for him, but the universal disdain and near identical pounding of hammers, lighting of torches, and frantically waving shovels, rakes, and hatchets was totally unexpected. I guess all one has to do is attend one of his plays - it is a strong display of how brotha's just don't care for him. It is like being in church on Sunday morning - all women for as far as the eye can see!


I do agree with you on LOTR.

Well, I guess I wasn't totally shut out......:biggrin5:.

[PeruvianSkies]

I love the movie for what it is and what it's about. However, it could have been at least an hour shorter if he didn't do so many shots of just staring at himself.

There are actually 3 versions of the film, most people are familiar with the 3 hour version, which is what went into theaters in 1990 along with the several home video releases of the film at that length as well. There was however and extended version that went close to 4 hours and then a "directors cut" which was 4 hours and in my opinion - the best version of the film.

While the 3 hour cut is certainly long by many standards, it does tell the story well and allows enough time to capture the important moments, but the 4 hour cut is far more detailed and works as a truly sweeping epic that allows adequate time to telling more of the side stories to greater depth and giving the film a pace that despite being 1 hour longer, never feels like it's dragging.

A few years ago I bought a Japanese rare import of the film on DVD, which included both the theatrical and directors cut of the film, it was encased in a really cool leather limited edition pouch along with other goodies inside, it also featured the film in DTS, which was absent on just about all U.S. release of the film minus an early Image Entertainment DTS release of the film that fell out of print early in the formats life. MGM later issued the film in a superbly flawed DVD edition...for shame.

[Auricauricle]

So is this a slamming actors forum or a discussion on film theory?

Just checking....

[RGA]

If it was cut down to just two hours, the whole epic nature of the entire series would have been completely lost. What actually made those movies was the extended cuts of each one. Having now seen the theatrical cuts on Blu ray, I can see these are quite inferior to the extended versions. The extended versions really flesh out the detail of these movies so they actually make more sense. It is just hard as hell to sit on your azz for so long!

Unfortunately for me there wasn't enough in the theatrical version for me to really want to ever sit through those films again - certainly not sit through the banal dialogue and one note story for 9+ hours. Special effects were great but like Avatar - if the story is thin and the dialog and acting is wooden then all the effects in the world can't save it.

This is why the first two Star Wars movies(first two that he made) were so good. Not the effects or the story - which is Cowboys and Indians in space based on the LOTR books to a degree - but because Lucas was smart enough not to take it "seriously." He made it with a whole dose of tongue in cheek humour because to take it seriously would be preposterous - and he started to move away from that in Retrun of the Jedi a bit and the new ones all totally stunk worse than a skunk in manure pile. he lost every ounce of humour. The LOTR movies IMO didn't get it either IMO although they were not bad - just not all that good. The basic theme of power corrupts was too monotonous to carry 8-9 hours IMO. Filling in CGI Special Effects for me isn't enough.

This is also why Jaws is ten times the film of Jurassic Park. Spielberg was forced to make a film where the star was not the shark. To a degree Spielberg got lucky that he was having so many technical difficulties with the shark. Showing scenes from the shark's perspective - having three quality characters at the center with good dialogue and and a semi claustrophobic atmosphere. Jurassic Park had far better special effects but was more of a theme park ride that didn't know if it was to aim at the kiddies or adults - it wasn't scary, it was visually stunning, had some good moments and even a good idea and it worked enough to be entertained, but it could have been so much better if they stripped away scenery and asked themselved if we didn't have the effects would this work. Shot it from the dino's perspective and ramped up the scares and had people to really care about and making the entire thing grittier and edgier.

The two new Batman films are like that grittier and edgier and more realistic while still being Batman. The earlier four batman movies are practically unwatchable in comparison - they're cartoons if even that good.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Unfortunately for me there wasn't enough in the theatrical version for me to really want to ever sit through those films again - certainly not sit through the banal dialogue and one note story for 9+ hours. Special effects were great but like Avatar - if the story is thin and the dialog and acting is wooden then all the effects in the world can't save it.

Different strokes for different folks, I love the extended version, but didn't really care for the theatrical version.


This is why the first two Star Wars movies(first two that he made) were so good. Not the effects or the story - which is Cowboys and Indians in space based on the LOTR books to a degree - but because Lucas was smart enough not to take it "seriously." He made it with a whole dose of tongue in cheek humour because to take it seriously would be preposterous - and he started to move away from that in Retrun of the Jedi a bit and the new ones all totally stunk worse than a skunk in manure pile. he lost every ounce of humour. The LOTR movies IMO didn't get it either IMO although they were not bad - just not all that good. The basic theme of power corrupts was too monotonous to carry 8-9 hours IMO. Filling in CGI Special Effects for me isn't enough.

The problem you have with LOTR is that you are trying to box it(and parse it) into a nice understandable ball, and it just isn't that kind of film(s). Much like the Star Wars movie, it is a balance of story line, visuals, and sound all wrapped together. All of these elements have an equal role, and if you attempt to dissect it using only the story line, then all of them fall short in some way or fashion. Peter Jackson AND George Lucas's movies have to be evaluated as a total packages, not ones parsed into small pieces.


This is also why Jaws is ten times the film of Jurassic Park. Spielberg was forced to make a film where the star was not the shark. To a degree Spielberg got lucky that he was having so many technical difficulties with the shark. Showing scenes from the shark's perspective - having three quality characters at the center with good dialogue and and a semi claustrophobic atmosphere. Jurassic Park had far better special effects but was more of a theme park ride that didn't know if it was to aim at the kiddies or adults - it wasn't scary, it was visually stunning, had some good moments and even a good idea and it worked enough to be entertained, but it could have been so much better if they stripped away scenery and asked themselved if we didn't have the effects would this work. Shot it from the dino's perspective and ramped up the scares and had people to really care about and making the entire thing grittier and edgier.

Actually, if you listen to the extra's on Jaw's, the star was the shark, and Spielberg even says so. While both films featured an animal destroying things and chasing humans, both could not be more different types of films. I don't really think they can be compared in the way you are trying to do. Part of what made Jurassic Park was its excellent use of CGI. I personally don't think that Jaws was more scary or tense than Jurassic Park was. Jaws use of sound was far less than Jurassic Park, and that was what made Jurassic Park(along with the great CGI) such an exciting film. Keep in mind, Jurassic Park was made partly for kids, so you had to balance scary with entertaining, or you will get a very negative reaction from the kids. Jaws had no such constraint. This is why you must be careful when trying to compare two films with appeal aimed to different audiences.


The two new Batman films are like that grittier and edgier and more realistic while still being Batman. The earlier four batman movies are practically unwatchable in comparison - they're cartoons if even that good.

I think you misunderstood Joel Schumacher intent. He was basing his version of Batman on the television series. The television series was campy, and so where his versions of the series. I got that, and took that for what it was worth, and I think Joel was successful in his intent. I just think it went to far as the series progressed.

Christopher Nolan series is based on the comic book, which is darker and more menacing than the television series was. I get this, and take it for what it is worth.

The basis on which both different series of films is based off is very different - hence the differences in the way each presents Batman.

[RGA]

Actually, if you listen to the extra's on Jaw's, the star was the shark, and Spielberg even says so.

I have the movie - the shark was intended to be the star - it didn't work they changed the way they were going to make the movie. This is obvious since all you have to do is look at the Shark's screen time. Spielberg's plan was to show the shark a LOT and when it didn't work he had to use the "unseen" for his scares.

Jurassic Park can be compared because like Jaws it is essentially a creature feature movie where there is a "monster" that kills people. JP it's a T-Rex and some other dinosaurs and with Jaws it is a T-Rex of the Deep - a Great White. Jaws is heralded as a classic in the critical press - Jurassic Park is a good decent movie but when the visual effects look merely so-so in 20 years JP will not carry the same visual impact and wonder - it will merely look like yesterday's technology - and with uninteresting characters and dialog it will be a footnote. Jaws has lasted 35 years because it never needed the shark effects to be the entire backbone of the film.




I think you misunderstood Joel Schumacher intent. He was basing his version of Batman on the television series. The television series was campy, and so where his versions of the series. I got that, and took that for what it was worth, and I think Joel was successful in his intent. I just think it went to far as the series progressed.

Christopher Nolan series is based on the comic book, which is darker and more menacing than the television series was. I get this, and take it for what it is worth.

The basis on which both different series of films is based off is very different - hence the differences in the way each presents Batman.

Yes I know the intent - I am not interested in a film's intent or what they based their movie ideas on - I am interested in results. The two new versions are much better films regardless whether one was based on the goofy campy TV series (or the movie version), cartoons or comic books. I believe the movie Batman with Adam West was in the 60's - I'd prefer watching that than any of the Schumacker films.

[dean_martin]

and if Scheider and Dreyfuss had had West's shark repellent...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k_B_n-Rbros?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k_B_n-Rbros?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[RGA]

HAHAHAHA - I love it Holy Sardine!

Shark repellent Bat-Spray

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have the movie - the shark was intended to be the star - it didn't work they changed the way they were going to make the movie. This is obvious since all you have to do is look at the Shark's screen time. Spielberg's plan was to show the shark a LOT and when it didn't work he had to use the "unseen" for his scares.

Keep listening to why the shark is not seen that much - it was to build tension just like Hitchcock used to do. If you listen carefully, they did not change a thing because the shark did not work, they just changed the order of the shooting until they got it working. I have heard this man talk about this movie explicitly in lectures when I was film school.


Jurassic Park can be compared because like Jaws it is essentially a creature feature movie where there is a "monster" that kills people. JP it's a T-Rex and some other dinosaurs and with Jaws it is a T-Rex of the Deep - a Great White. Jaws is heralded as a classic in the critical press - Jurassic Park is a good decent movie but when the visual effects look merely so-so in 20 years JP will not carry the same visual impact and wonder - it will merely look like yesterday's technology - and with uninteresting characters and dialog it will be a footnote. Jaws has lasted 35 years because it never needed the shark effects to be the entire backbone of the film.

I see nothing but personal opinion here. Jaws had just one thing in common with JP, a predator that was an animal. The similarities stop right there. Jaws was built solely around dialog, an unseen predator, the hunt, and its destruction. JP was built around discovery, rebirth, a mix of humans and creatures that humans never really interacted with, humans trying to control the predator, and the predator eventually chasing the humans off the island. Jaws predominately utilized music to build tension, JP sheer full force sound effects. Jaws used no CGI, and didn't need it, JP used CGI extensively because dinosaur no longer exist, and we know so little about their behavior when they did. One has a basis in reality(Jaws), the other zero basis in reality. Jaws was aimed squarely at adults, and JP at kids AND adults. Jaws lasted 35 years because nothing like what Spielberg did was tried before, that cannot be said with JP which was based on The Lost World. One was a ground up creation, the other a modern day take on an original. I could go on forever on the differences between them. There is one common thread between these two series - after the first, it was down hill, with Jaws hitting farther on the bottom in the end than JP did.

The idea the JP has no lasting power is just plain ridiculous. JP is one of the most widely requested film that folks want to be seen transferred to the Blu ray format.


Yes I know the intent - I am not interested in a film's intent or what they based their movie ideas on - I am interested in results. The two new versions are much better films regardless whether one was based on the goofy campy TV series (or the movie version), cartoons or comic books. I believe the movie Batman with Adam West was in the 60's - I'd prefer watching that than any of the Schumacker films.

Okay, so you know the first version was four films with two directors. The first two were Burton creations, and they were quite successful both financially and critically. Both were dark just like Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. This is were your shallow analysis falls short, as you omit the profound similarities between these films, as they are on another level than Batman Forever, and Batman and Robin. Both of these four films are based on the comic book. It was Schumacher that derailed the series by adhering to the television version when the first two were clearly based on the comic. He created the discontinuity of the entire series, which effectively sunk it for good. The first two versions are clearly not on the same vein as the last two. So you just can't throw the whole series away just because of the weakness and discontinuity of the last two. Burton's version lined up more with Nolan version, and that is pretty clear. The only thing that separates the two is a very different story line, and about 15 years of technical improvements in film making.

[PeruvianSkies]

Did we go from annoying actors to talking about Jurassic Park and Jaws?

Whatever the case may be, there is hardly any likeness between JURASSIC PARK and JAWS, they are incredibly different in just about every-possible-way. Although Spielberg is of course the link between the two, he has never made a film like JAWS ever since. Furthermore, they are written by two very different authors and taken in different directions, Sir T. already summed that up quite well.

Same goes for the various BATMAN approaches. For me, I like the way Burton brought a Gothic tone to the two Michael Keaton films, then it became a butchered mess under Joel Schumacher.

Although Schumacher was more of a studio puppet as they wanted to go a different direction than where Burton had taken it, and then they tried to have way too many villains, the fact of the matter is, you can't have that many celebrities all vying for screen time to really focus in on a good solid story and Arnold as Mr. Freeze was pathetic, although his dialogue in that film must have been written by a third grader. It's comical beyond disgust.

[RGA]

The reason critics often compare Jurassic Park to Jaws is precisely because they are comparable. That does not mean that they are completely comparable or that they have the same story but that Jurassic park could be a much better film if it had taken some cues from Jaws a vastly superior film. Critically it is a better film - the average movie goer and what banked more at the box office is another matter.

Roger Ebert makes a great note in his review of Jurassic Park noting:

"Think back to another ambitious special effects picture from Spielberg, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977). That was a movie about the "idea" of visitors from outer space. It inspired us to think what an awesome thing it would be, if earth were visited by living alien beings. You left that movie shaken and a little transformed. It was a movie that had faith in the intelligence and curiosity of its audience.

In the 16 years since it was made, however, big-budget Hollywood seems to have lost its confidence that audiences can share big dreams. "Jurassic Park" throws a lot of dinosaurs at us, and because they look terrific (and indeed they do), we're supposed to be grateful. I have the uneasy feeling that if Spielberg had made "Close Encounters" today, we would have seen the aliens in the first 10 minutes, and by the halfway mark they'd be attacking Manhattan with death rays."
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19930611/REVIEWS/306110302/1023

What is prophetic about that quote is that Spielberg made the terrible War of the Worlds movie where the Aliens do in fact come in and blow everything up early in the movie.

With Jaws he notes

"When young Steven Spielberg was first offered the screenplay for "Jaws," he said he would direct the movie on one condition: That he didn't have to show the shark for the first hour. By slowly building the audience's apprehension, he felt, the shark would be much more impressive when it finally arrived.

He was right. I wish he had remembered that lesson when he was preparing "Jurassic Park,"

When I say lasting - I say lasting from a critics perspective - one of the highest rated films in history is Citizen Kane - ask 100 million Americans which they would rather watch Citizen Kane or Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and I wuill be happy to wager that the majority of them choose the latter. That doesn't mean the latter is a better movie. There is a misguided notion that truth is whatever the majortiy believes it to be.

Jaws with film critics is often placed on the top 100 films of all time. JP does not have remotely that stature. Jaws is a film it's also a thempark ride. Jurassic park is only the latter and once you've tried it a couple of times it's done.

It has GREAT special effects - so I should imagine it would be a film a new Blu-Ray owner would want to buy. They can show off the quality of their big screen TV and their surround sound system - king of like the Ultimate Drums album - musically it's not great but it shows off some spectacular sonics. JP shows off Blu-Ray technology, DVD before that and LaserDisc before that. Showing off technology and being a good movie or a good piece of music isn't the same thing.

[Hyfi]

There are actually 3 versions of the film, most people are familiar with the 3 hour version, which is what went into theaters in 1990 along with the several home video releases of the film at that length as well. There was however and extended version that went close to 4 hours and then a "directors cut" which was 4 hours and in my opinion - the best version of the film.



Wow, you mean to tell me I missed out on staring at KC for a whole other hour?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzz

[RGA]

Batman

Tim Burton made the first two. Of the first four movies these were arguably the best two. Some didn't like Batman Returns finding it too dark. Perhaps why the studio changed track with Schumacker. But 3 and 4 were complete crap so let's not even bother discussing those ones.

My perspective ratings were as Follows

Batman 1989 Tim Burton *** out of ***** The success of the film is likely in Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker. The rest of the cast is wooden. Great looking art direction and solid visual and sound effects.

Batman Returns1992 Tim Burton (grudgingly accepts to do sequel) **1/2 out of ***** Darker brooding and less of a film for kids. It was darker in a less realistic way. Performances were better here but the story fell flat.

Batman Forever 1995 Joel Schumacker *1/2 out of ***** Annoying perfromance from Jim Carrey mugging for the camera as the Riddler. Val Kilmer even more of a wooden performance than Keaton which was pretty tough to do. Tommy Lee Jones wasted.

Batman and Robin 1997 Schumacker * out of ***** - Dreadful overracted mess. One star for Uma Thurman nothing for everything else. This film didn't even look particularly good visually.

Batman Begins 2005 **** out of ***** Nolen, unlike Burton, created a fully realised story about the main character - Batman didn't just serve as a foil to the leading bad guy like the Joker in the 1989 film. Nolen also has a very dark atmosphere but he handled it in a way that we "believed' the world that Bruce Wayne lived in - not the ridiculous one Burton created that looked more like a beetlejuice landscape than a futuristic one that Nolen creates. Far better performances and writing throughout.

Batman: The Dark Knight (some tiles don't include Batman) 2008 ****1/2 out of ***** - Arguably the best super hero movie ever made. With 8 academy award nominations and winning some of the higher prized awards this film was everything the first film was and added a truly outstanding performance from Ledger as a gritty realistic and thus far scarier Joker. A madman with a performance that ranks right there with Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.

The Nolen films also possess star studded casts and yet he actually has them ACT instead of trying to steal scenes and out "over-act" everyone else. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger, Maggi Gyllenhall, Gary Oldman. Christian Bale.

If anything Bale is the least interesting actor in the films (I think they could probably do better). But he's still far superior as Batman than the first 4 movies.

Critically speaking these Nolen films are far superior.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The reason critics often compare Jurassic Park to Jaws is precisely because they are comparable. That does not mean that they are completely comparable or that they have the same story but that Jurassic park could be a much better film if it had taken some cues from Jaws a vastly superior film. Critically it is a better film - the average movie goer and what banked more at the box office is another matter.

Roger Ebert makes a great note in his review of Jurassic Park noting:

"Think back to another ambitious special effects picture from Spielberg, "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (1977). That was a movie about the "idea" of visitors from outer space. It inspired us to think what an awesome thing it would be, if earth were visited by living alien beings. You left that movie shaken and a little transformed. It was a movie that had faith in the intelligence and curiosity of its audience.

In the 16 years since it was made, however, big-budget Hollywood seems to have lost its confidence that audiences can share big dreams. "Jurassic Park" throws a lot of dinosaurs at us, and because they look terrific (and indeed they do), we're supposed to be grateful. I have the uneasy feeling that if Spielberg had made "Close Encounters" today, we would have seen the aliens in the first 10 minutes, and by the halfway mark they'd be attacking Manhattan with death rays."
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19930611/REVIEWS/306110302/1023

What is prophetic about that quote is that Spielberg made the terrible War of the Worlds movie where the Aliens do in fact come in and blow everything up early in the movie.

With Jaws he notes

"When young Steven Spielberg was first offered the screenplay for "Jaws," he said he would direct the movie on one condition: That he didn't have to show the shark for the first hour. By slowly building the audience's apprehension, he felt, the shark would be much more impressive when it finally arrived.

He was right. I wish he had remembered that lesson when he was preparing "Jurassic Park,"

When I say lasting - I say lasting from a critics perspective - one of the highest rated films in history is Citizen Kane - ask 100 million Americans which they would rather watch Citizen Kane or Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and I wuill be happy to wager that the majority of them choose the latter. That doesn't mean the latter is a better movie. There is a misguided notion that truth is whatever the majortiy believes it to be.

Jaws with film critics is often placed on the top 100 films of all time. JP does not have remotely that stature. Jaws is a film it's also a thempark ride. Jurassic park is only the latter and once you've tried it a couple of times it's done.

It has GREAT special effects - so I should imagine it would be a film a new Blu-Ray owner would want to buy. They can show off the quality of their big screen TV and their surround sound system - king of like the Ultimate Drums album - musically it's not great but it shows off some spectacular sonics. JP shows off Blu-Ray technology, DVD before that and LaserDisc before that. Showing off technology and being a good movie or a good piece of music isn't the same thing.

Richard, there is nothing in the comments of Ebert that compare these two movies together. Give it up while you are behind. While I appreciated your opinion, your analytical skills(at least on these movies) falls way short.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Batman

Tim Burton made the first two. Of the first four movies these were arguably the best two. Some didn't like Batman Returns finding it too dark. Perhaps why the studio changed track with Schumacker. But 3 and 4 were complete crap so let's not even bother discussing those ones.

My perspective ratings were as Follows

Batman 1989 Tim Burton *** out of ***** The success of the film is likely in Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker. The rest of the cast is wooden. Great looking art direction and solid visual and sound effects.

Batman Returns1992 Tim Burton (grudgingly accepts to do sequel) **1/2 out of ***** Darker brooding and less of a film for kids. It was darker in a less realistic way. Performances were better here but the story fell flat.

Batman Forever 1995 Joel Schumacker *1/2 out of ***** Annoying perfromance from Jim Carrey mugging for the camera as the Riddler. Val Kilmer even more of a wooden performance than Keaton which was pretty tough to do. Tommy Lee Jones wasted.

Batman and Robin 1997 Schumacker * out of ***** - Dreadful overracted mess. One star for Uma Thurman nothing for everything else. This film didn't even look particularly good visually.

Batman Begins 2005 **** out of ***** Nolen, unlike Burton, created a fully realised story about the main character - Batman didn't just serve as a foil to the leading bad guy like the Joker in the 1989 film. Nolen also has a very dark atmosphere but he handled it in a way that we "believed' the world that Bruce Wayne lived in - not the ridiculous one Burton created that looked more like a beetlejuice landscape than a futuristic one that Nolen creates. Far better performances and writing throughout.

Batman: The Dark Knight (some tiles don't include Batman) 2008 ****1/2 out of ***** - Arguably the best super hero movie ever made. With 8 academy award nominations and winning some of the higher prized awards this film was everything the first film was and added a truly outstanding performance from Ledger as a gritty realistic and thus far scarier Joker. A madman with a performance that ranks right there with Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs.

The Nolen films also possess star studded casts and yet he actually has them ACT instead of trying to steal scenes and out "over-act" everyone else. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, Aaron Eckhart, Heath Ledger, Maggi Gyllenhall, Gary Oldman. Christian Bale.

If anything Bale is the least interesting actor in the films (I think they could probably do better). But he's still far superior as Batman than the first 4 movies.

Critically speaking these Nolen films are far superior.

You better keep reviewing audio equipment, cause your movie reviewing skills leave a lot to be desired.

[bobsticks]

I constantly am annoyed by the velociraptors. Frankly, I think they overact and add unnecessary nonverbals. Plus each time they lunge to the left they feint to the right...it's like a tell in poker.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I constantly am annoyed by the velociraptors. Frankly, I think they overact and add unnecessary nonverbals. Plus each time they lunge to the left they feint to the right...it's like a tell in poker.

LOLOL (shoulders hunching)

[3LB]

The problem with a lot of the acting coming from Hollywood, is that many actors, whether by their design, the writers, the directors, or the studio, are personallity based, and not character based. This has always been a part of the Hollywood formula, but it seems there are less and less character actors, character acting, and is probably due in part to the scripts being written tailor-made to fit particular actors' personallities. Too many movies are either vehicles for actors or special effect extraveganzas. Prolly just as much our fault if we only pay to see those kinds of movies in theaters.

[RGA]

Sir T

I am going to come at this from an English Lit. In Literature which includes plays, films, cartoons, and basically any written art form, there are certain story segments. One can write what is called a "Compare and Contrast Essay" about virtually any two pieces of writing/lit/film etc that is out there and a better job will be done if two pieces follow the same conflict outline. This is fact not conjecture.

The conflicts are as follows:

Individual vs. Self

Individual vs. Self (Person vs. Character) is when the main character in the story has a problem with him/herself. The Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an example of this kind of conflict.[1]

Character vs. Character

Character vs. Character is when, in a novel, there is a conflict of two forms of like beings.[1] An example is the hero's conflicts with the central villain of a work, which may play a large role in the plot and contribute to the development of both characters. There are usually several arguments/disagreements before the climax is reached. The conflict is external. person vs. Person can usually be expressed by,for example, when a child is being ridiculed by a bully. An example is the conflict between Judah and Messala in Ben-Hur, it can be any form of character.

Character vs. Society

Character vs. Society is a theme in fiction in which a main character's, or group of main characters, main source of conflict is social traditions or concepts.[1] In this sense, the two parties are: a) the protagonist(s) and b) the society of which the protagonist(s) are included. Society itself is often looked at as single character, just as an opposing party would be looked at in a Character vs. Character conflict. Character vs. Society conflict gives the playwright an opportunity to comment on positive/negative aspects of a whole.

Character vs. Nature

Character vs. Nature is the theme in literature that places a character against forces of nature.[1] Many disaster films focus on this theme, which is predominant within many survival stories. It is also strong in stories about struggling for survival in remote locales, such as the novel Hatchet or Jack London's short story "To Build a Fire".

Character vs. Supernatural

Character vs. God, or the Supernatural. This could be any supernatural force that is outside the understanding of the protagonist, including monsters, aliens, or deities. Examples include the film The Exorcist, Alien, The Seventh Seal, or Final Destination.

Character vs. Machine/Technology

Character vs. Machine/Technology places a character against man-made entities which may possess "artificial intelligence". The films Metropolis and Blade Runner are good examples of this conflict.

Character vs. Destiny

Character vs. Destiny (or Fate) is a theme where one attempts to break free of a predetermined path chosen before him prior to his knowledge. It can also be referred to as an issue between fate and freewill. A common example is Shakespeare's Macbeth and Back To The Future.

Man vs. Animal

The mythological struggle
Man and animal have been formidable foes dating back to Anglo-Saxon myths such as "Beowulf," or Homer's "The Odyssey," a classic Greek tale of man vs. beast. The beasts of popular myths often exhibit supernatural strength, but are ultimately defeated by the cunning and bravery of their human foe. This external conflict is often used to show the symbolic struggle between good and evil.


Works like Jaws and Jurassic Park can be compared on a number of fronts - Man versus nature which includes the natural elements including all animals past or present. Unless you wish to argue that Dino's were put here to test man's faith in God it would then follow that you could compare it using the the man vs supernatural. As Jaws while being a shark is not like any typical shark - you could argue it from a supernatural realism perspective. A super shark if you will.

Both stories have man versus man/society elements. The owner operator of the theme park is running a business to the possible detriment of the people who would go to his island to the mayor of the beach town who keeps the beach open to the possible detriment of his soon to be fish food patrons.

From a genre perspective both films can be compared - both are action/thriller movies.

There is much to be contrasted as well maybe more but to say that these two films can not be compared at fundamental levels is entirely and patently wrong. Man vs beast/nature - the contrast is one is in the water and one is on land. Both beasts are trying to kill man. Both movies man is trying not to be eaten. In Jaws the men go after the beast to kill it. In JP they're just trying to escape - but that does not invalidate prior comparable aspects.

You can compare and contrast the roles that special effects plays in building tension. You can compare the success and failure the films use special effects to build that tension.
You can compare the profit versus safety aspect of the park owner to the towns people who don't want the beach closed. You can compare both of those to society today and how some big business put profit ahead of safety. You could compare Shelley's Frankenstein to Jurassic Park with man trying to play God to Jaws where man has arguably caused God's greatest ocean killing machine due to environmental factors which is why the Schneider character and Hooper are wondering why the shark has moved into these waters so unusually. The Lost World film has even juicier essay comparables to Jaws with the notion of bringing them to cities to put them in zoos and the impact that has. Jaws 3 could also be cited since their underwater park was a zoo.

The fact that both movies have the same director has piles of structural comparisons - how the director chooses to build tension in Jaws versus the way he did in JP - Ebert made the "comaprison/contrast" in his review. You can compare the claustrophobic elements of the three guys on a broken down boat to being on a small island or in a kitchen with the enemy dino or shark on the other side of the door/boat hull trying to get in for their dinner. You can compare the writing choices of who tends to live and who tends to die. The family man and the amiable scientists lives while the "hunters" in both films end up getting eating. The shark hunter is the one who dies - the hunter in JP with the hat gets outsmarted and killed by the clever dino's.

It can go on and on with comparison and contrast - so long as any piece of writing in fiction follows any structural similarity then they are comparable and can be contrasted as well.

[PeruvianSkies]

I get what you are saying, but I still don't agree that they are comparable films, despite both being Spielberg-esque. The only analogy that comes to mind for me though is saying that JAWS and JURASSIC PARK are like Hockey and Basketball.... both have many of the same elements as they are both team sports, both have nets, both require defense and offense positions, both are played on hard surfaces, both are indoor sports, both require the players to shoot the object to score, passing is necessary, etc etc. Just because they are similar in many ways does not mean that they are the same caliber of a film, regardless of their similarities in storytelling.

Michael Crighton and Peter Benchley are very different authors as well, although of course many believe that there are only 7 or so story-lines out there to begin with, of course there will be similarities.

[RGA]

I get what you are saying, but I still don't agree that they are comparable films, despite both being Spielberg-esque. The only analogy that comes to mind for me though is saying that JAWS and JURASSIC PARK are like Hockey and Basketball.... both have many of the same elements as they are both team sports, both have nets, both require defense and offense positions, both are played on hard surfaces, both are indoor sports, both require the players to shoot the object to score, passing is necessary, etc etc. Just because they are similar in many ways does not mean that they are the same caliber of a film, regardless of their similarities in storytelling.

Michael Crighton and Peter Benchley are very different authors as well, although of course many believe that there are only 7 or so story-lines out there to begin with, of course there will be similarities.

I agree that there are other films more comparable than these two but more comparable - and not comparable at all is what I am going by.

My main point was that JP could have been better as a "thriller" which is what it is designed to be if it had relied on what Spielberg had done with Jaws. Which is reduce the special effects - made it more of a character driven story and had a dinosaur eye view of the events. Of course they should show dinosaurs but they could have ramped up some of the scares. Roger Ebert made the same point.

There is a lot to be contrasted but in general to contrast something you chose something that was comparable in the first place.

Ultimately they're man versus beast have to outsmart out battle the beast(s) in order to stay alive.

Your 7 story aspect is correct in the sense that plots generally follow one of those - the contrast is how the movie/novel tackles it. So I would say there are more differences to JP and Jaws than similarities - probably many more - but they still have enough similarity not to say "they are not comparable at all" - they are.

[PeruvianSkies]

I agree that there are other films more comparable than these two but more comparable - and not comparable at all is what I am going by.

My main point was that JP could have been better as a "thriller" which is what it is designed to be if it had relied on what Spielberg had done with Jaws. Which is reduce the special effects - made it more of a character driven story and had a dinosaur eye view of the events. Of course they should show dinosaurs but they could have ramped up some of the scares. Roger Ebert made the same point.

There is a lot to be contrasted but in general to contrast something you chose something that was comparable in the first place.

Ultimately they're man versus beast have to outsmart out battle the beast(s) in order to stay alive.

Your 7 story aspect is correct in the sense that plots generally follow one of those - the contrast is how the movie/novel tackles it. So I would say there are more differences to JP and Jaws than similarities - probably many more - but they still have enough similarity not to say "they are not comparable at all" - they are.

Fair enough.

[bobsticks]

My main point was that JP could have been better as a "thriller" which is what it is designed to be if it had relied on what Spielberg had done with Jaws. Which is reduce the special effects - made it more of a character driven story and had a dinosaur eye view of the events. Of course they should show dinosaurs but they could have ramped up some of the scares. Roger Ebert made the same poin.

Well...sorta. I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment from the perspective of an adult. My girlfriends kids, OTOH, demand more replays of Jurassic Park than anything else. I suspect this was the audience for which it was intended.

[PeruvianSkies]

Well...sorta. I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment from the perspective of an adult. My girlfriends kids, OTOH, demand more replays of Jurassic Park than anything else. I suspect this was the audience for which it was intended.

This is because JURASSIC PARK evokes the fantasy and imagination that really became the flavor of almost all of Spielberg's films after JAWS and DUEL.

While JURASSIC PARK has elements of horror and the fear factor components, it's more about the possibility of fusing together man and dinosaur in such a realistic fashion that we are moved by the very thought of it, I can recall seeing the film in 1993 for the first time in the theater and being blown away as we observe for the first time (along with much of the cast) as they fly into the Dino-world from a plane and we see the Brontosaurs roaming the island....it's jaw dropping.

[bobsticks]

...and here all this time I just thought that the kids were retarded...

[Groundbeef]

Julianne Moore

2 films of hers have caused me to put her on 'perma-ban'. I refuse to see any picture that has her in it. She could even be a bit part, and I wouldn't go to see it, or rent it.

Freedomland, and Children of Men. Both movies sucked, and both sucked 2X more because of her wishy-washy crybaby acting.

That's just my opinion of course.:o